Surrey County Council (23 017 871)

Category : Adult care services > Assessment and care plan

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 20 Mar 2024

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to find a suitable alternative care package to replace the service that was cancelled. He also complains the Council signposted him to inappropriate services. This is because the alleged faults have not caused any significant injustice.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains the Council failed to find a suitable alternative care package to replace the service that was cancelled. He says this meant the Council failed to meet his assessed needs. He also complains the Council signposted him to inappropriate services.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:
  • there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
  • any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Following a care assessment, Mr X received access to a smartphone application (App). This App was to meet Mr X’s assessed needs. The licence for this App cost just over £1600 for the year.
  2. Mr X said the App was not meeting his needs and so asked the Council to provide an alternative package to use up the remainder of the monies remaining given he had not used the application for the full year.
  3. Mr X considered he required counselling and suggested two providers to the Council. The Council explained the two providers suggested were counselling therapies, which are to meet an individual’s health related need, rather than a social care need. The Council appropriately signposted Mr X to his doctor to explore accessing counselling services through the NHS. The Council also signposted Mr X to other services it considered could assist with Mr X’s needs.
  4. The Council also reassessed Mr X in October 2023. This assessment identified Mr X did have eligible social care needs and recommendation was for a personal assistant for two hours a week. However, as Mr X had over the capital threshold of £23,250, this meant he was responsible for the full cost of his care and support. Mr X declined to pay privately for the personal assistant support identified.
  5. The core issue is that Mr X is unhappy the Council will not provide him with counselling to replace the provision he was receiving through the App. Mr X does not accept the Council’s position that counselling is a health need as he considers the App provided counselling as part of the service.
  6. I have reviewed the App Mr X received and I do note as part of the App, coaching is provided and that users can be support by a therapist if necessary. Coaching and counselling are two distinct and different provisions. While I can understand why Mr X might considers the App provides counselling, I do not agree it did. I am satisfied counselling is primarily to address a mental health related need. Therefore, this is not provision that would fall under adult social care.
  7. However, it is clear the Council had assessed Mr X as having eligible needs. Therefore, it had a duty to provide the care and support to meet these eligible needs. It is not clear whether the Council had taken steps to source alternative care and support for Mr X after he stopped using the App.
  8. Mr X was assessed as a full cost payer. This was because he had savings over the capital threshold of £23,250. By law, this means it is Mr X’s responsibility to pay for the full cost of his care and support services. Mr X declined to pay for the personal assistant support he was assessed as requiring. This was why the Council did not arrange the provision.
  9. Given this, I am satisfied it is likely on balance that even if the Council had sourced an alternative care package to replace the service he received through the App, Mr X would have declined to pay for the service. Put simply, Mr X would still be in the same position as he is now even if the alleged fault had not occurred. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as the alleged faults have not caused Mr X any significant injustice.
  10. Regarding the signposting, I acknowledge Mr X considers the signposting to be inappropriate. However, we are not likely to find fault with the Council as it was appropriate for them to signpost Mr X to services it considered could assist Mr X and it is not expected for the Council to be an expert in the precise details of what services the signposted organisations can provided.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the alleged faults have not caused any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings