Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about assessing adult social care needs. The person using the service has died and so we can achieve no worthwhile outcome from an investigation. The Council accepts delays in assessing adult social care needs caused by difficulty recruiting staff. In the meantime, the Council has a system to prioritise the waiting cases, which is what the Ombudsman would expect.

The complaint

1. Ms D says the Council failed to properly consider her relative, Ms E’s wishes to move to residential care, and supporting information provided by Ms E’s doctor. Ms D says this impeded the quality of Ms E’s life in the months leading up to her death.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused significant enough injustice to the person who complained to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. The Council completed a Care Act assessment of Ms E’s needs after a long delay.
6. Ms E lived at home with care workers visiting. The Council did not assess Ms E needed residential care; it assessed her needs could be met by her existing care package. The Council later assessed Ms E needed to increase the number of daily visits. The Council must consider the least restrictive option, even though Ms E preferred to move to residential care.
7. There was then a delay setting up direct payments to fund Ms E’s care package. The Council’s delays did not cause a significant impact because Ms E was already receiving the care the Council assessed she needed. The Council refunded any financial impact caused by the delay setting up direct payments to fund the care package.
8. Several months after the Council’s assessment, Ms D wrote to complain that it was not meeting Ms E’s needs. Ms D said Ms E was often in soiled clothing/bedding and that Ms E was lonely and wanted company. Ms D has provided a letter from Ms E’s doctor which refers to concerns about skin integrity due to being in soiled pads overnight with no support. It is not clear if the Council had a copy of that letter. In my view these concerns should have triggered a reassessment of Ms E’s needs and review of the care package. However, we cannot say the outcome would be any different, the Council may still have assessed Ms E did not need residential care. This therefore causes uncertainty about Ms E’s needs and whether the Council was properly meeting them. We can provide no remedy to Ms E as she has since died.
9. The Council admits the service failure in this case; delays caused by national staff shortages. The Council has apologised to Ms D. The Council has a system in place to prioritise cases, which is what the Ombudsman would expect in these circumstances. As well as trying to fill the vacancies as soon as possible to improve service.
10. After Ms E’s death the Council sent wrong invoices, which although this was frustrating for Ms D she confirms is now resolved.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms D’s complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. The Council acknowledges its service failure; delays caused by an inability to recruit staff. The Council is managing the delays in the interim with a system to prioritise cases. This had an impact on Ms E as she was not a high priority because she was already receiving care support. But there is little else the Ombudsman could recommend the Council do in these circumstances. The Council should continue to try and fill its vacancies.
12. Ms E has died so we can provide no remedy to her for the impact of the Council’s actions in her case. While there is some uncertainty, upset and frustration to Ms D this would not justify an Ombudsman investigation. The Council has apologised to Ms D for the impact of its delay, and it is unlikely we would achieve anything further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman