Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to prepare to transition her son, Mr Y, to adulthood, caused distress to him, and caused delays in assessing him for a care plan. There was fault by the Council. It delayed completing Mr Y’s care assessment and did not consider taking a different approach in completing the assessment when it considered Mr Y was not engaging with it. It also did not keep Mr Y and Ms X informed throughout the process, and wrongly closed Mr Y’s referral to mental health services. Because of the fault, Mr Y and Ms X suffered distress and uncertainty, and there was a delay in Mr Y receiving mental health support. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr Y and Ms X, make a symbolic payment to Mr Y, and issue staff briefings.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council:
• failed to adequately prepare to transition her son, who I will refer to as Mr Y, to adulthood;
• has been responsible for causing emotional and mental distress to Mr Y during his time spent in supported living accommodation; and
• has caused delays in assessing Mr Y for a care plan.
2. Ms X says Mr Y is traumatised by the Council’s actions and his health has been impacted. Ms X says she has been continuously fighting for support for Mr Y, and it has caused distress to her.
3. Ms X would like the Council to support in helping Mr Y to improve his mental and emotional health. She would also like the Council to take accountability and apologise to Mr Y.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
8. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

9. I have investigated matters in this case from late May 2023, when Mr Y moved out of supported living accommodation, to late August 2024, when the Council sent its stage two response to Ms Y’s complaint. I reference matters before and after these dates for context.
10. I have not investigated:
• Ms X’s complaint the Council failed to adequately prepare to transition Mr Y to adulthood; and
• Ms X’s complaint the Council has been responsible for causing emotional and mental distress to Mr Y during his time spent in supported living accommodation.
11. I have not investigated the complaints listed in paragraph 10 above because these complaints are late, and there is no good reason Ms X could not have complained to us about these matters sooner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Assessment

14. 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. They must provide an assessment to everyone regardless of their finances or whether the council thinks the person has eligible needs. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the results they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where suitable their carer or any other person they might want involved.
15. Councils must carry out assessments over a suitable and reasonable timescale considering the urgency of needs and any variation in those needs. Councils should tell people when their assessment will take place and keep them informed throughout the assessment.

Care plan

16. The Care Act 2014 gives councils a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan (or a support plan for a carer). The care and support plan should consider what needs the person has, what they want to achieve, what they can do by themselves or with existing support and what care and support may be available in the local area. When preparing a care and support plan the council must involve any carer the adult has. The support plan must include a personal budget, which is the money the council has worked out it will cost to arrange the necessary care and support for that person.

Refusal of assessment

17. An adult with possible care and support needs or a carer may choose to refuse an assessment. In these circumstances councils do not have to carry out an assessment. Where a council identifies that an adult lacks mental capacity and that carrying out a needs assessment would be in the adult’s best interests, it must do so.

Back to top

What happened

18. This is a summary of events outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
19. In February 2023, the Council assigned Mr Y a new social worker. At this time, Mr Y was living in supported living accommodation. The social worker met with Ms X, and Mr Y’s father, who I will refer to as Mr Z, to handover from the previous social worker and speak about Mr Y. Mr Y contacted the social worker around this time and told him all he wanted support with was getting a flat so his friends and family could support him.
20. In late February 2023, the social worker visited Mr Y’s home, with Ms X present.
21. During this period, the Council says the social worker tried to contact Mr Y often, but did not receive a response from him.
22. In April 2023, Mr Y served notice on his tenancy at the supported living accommodation due to continuing issues with it.
23. In May 2023, the social worker visited Mr Y to speak about his housing plans after his tenancy ends, but Mr Y did not want to speak with him. In late May 2023, Mr Y moved out of the supported living accommodation.
24. At the end of May 2023, Mr Y had an online mental health review, and the doctor made a mental health support referral request.
25. In early June 2023, Ms X bought a property which Mr Y moved into. The social worker contacted Mr Y and asked if he could visit him, but he did not receive a response.
26. In late June 2023, the social worker visited Mr Y at home with Ms X present.
27. In early July 2023, Ms X asked the social worker if the Council had a support package for Mr Y. The social worker told her due to difficulties in Mr Y engaging with Council staff, a support package was difficult to put in place at that time and it would be more achievable once he had created rapport with Mr Y.
28. A few days later, the social worker visited Mr Y with Ms X present. The Council says this was a successful visit where Mr Y discussed his interests and hobbies, but Mr Y did not appear to have a response when the social worker reminded Mr Y they also needed to discuss his care and support needs.
29. In late July 2023, the social worker told Mr Y he would be visiting him again, but Mr Y declined the visit. The social worker asked him what date he would prefer a visit, but Mr Y did not respond.
30. In early August 2023, the social worker visited Mr Y with Ms X present. The Council says there was limited engagement from Mr Y about his care and support needs.
31. In mid-September 2023, a transitions meeting was held. It was agreed Mr Y was at risk without a clear plan in place for him. A home visit to Mr Y was organised by the social worker around this time, but he declined so this did not go ahead.
32. In October 2023, the social worker visited Mr Y twice with Ms X present. The Council says there was no further success in getting Mr Y’s views about his care and support needs.
33. In December 2023, the social worker visited Mr Y with Ms X present, at her home. The Council says the social worker did not speak with Mr Y during the visit, and the visit was not successful.
34. In January 2024, the social worker contacted Mr Y. He asked him if there was anything he could help him with. Mr Y did not respond.
35. In mid-February 2024, the Council sent a letter to Mr Y. It told him mental health services would be closing the case due to the lack of engagement from Mr Y, but if he changed his mind, they would refer him to the appropriate mental health services. Although Ms X says Mr Y was not told about this until after she made a complaint with the Council.
36. In late February 2024, the Council says the social worker sent a letter to Mr Y to ask if he needed support with anything moving forward. Mr Y did not respond.
37. In mid-March 2024, Ms X contacted the social worker to ask about the case closure. The social worker told Ms X besides housing, Mr Y had not expressed wanting other support. He said Mr Y had not engaged with him, so it was unclear what support he would like. Ms X asked to meet with the social worker to discuss the assessment process and request the case remained open as it would not benefit Mr Y to close it.
38. A meeting was arranged for mid-April 2024, but Ms X was unable to attend.
39. In early May 2024, Ms X raised a complaint with the Council. She told it:
• Mr Y was not made aware by the social worker the assessment process was being carried out or what was involved during the care assessment;
• the social worker had not asked Mr Y what he would like in terms of care, and did not ask him how he wished to be assessed; and
• the Council had not provided alternative methods of carrying out the care assessment, given Mr Y’s mental health issues. So, she considered it irritational for the Council to say Mr Y had not engaged with the care assessment.
40. In June 2024, the Council sent its stage one complaint response to Ms X. It told her:
• Mr Y has capacity, so the Council is left with little option but to close its involvement if he is declining offers of help;
• it saw no evidence to suggest any delays in completing a care assessment have been caused by staff members not working or attempting to work with Mr Y;
• the referral to mental health services was made by Ms X which Mr Y did not consent to, so the referral was closed as he has capacity; and
• the case had not been closed, and the Council would offer a reassessment of need if Mr Y would agree to work with the team, with the support of an independent advocate.
41. Ms X told the Council she was disappointed with its response, but she thought it was essential to continue with Mr Y’s care assessment. The Council told her it would focus on the allocation of a new social worker and offer Mr Y a re-assessment if he would accept this. It also asked if it could have direct consent from Mr Y for the Council to refer him to mental health services if this would be helpful to him. Ms X told the Council she did not make the referral to mental health services on behalf of Mr Y. She told the Council it was the doctor who made the referral with Mr Y’s agreement, following the mental health review in May 2023.
42. In August 2024, Mr Y was allocated with a new social worker. The Council also sent its final complaint response to Ms X. It maintained its position that Mr Y has capacity to make decisions, and if his decision is to not engage with the Council and not require support, the Council is left with no role.
43. In late August 2024, the new social worker carried out a care assessment for Mr Y, and the assessment was completed in early September 2024. The outcome of the assessment was for Mr Y to be referred to mental health services. Although Ms X says this was not made clear to her by the Council.
44. During my investigation, Ms X told me Mr Y has been having weekly visits from a mental health support worker and engagement with her has been successful.

Back to top

Analysis

45. It is clear from the documentation there were delays by the Council in carrying out a care assessment for Mr Y. A care assessment was completed in September 2024 when Mr Y was allocated a new social worker. This was 18 months after the previous social worker was originally allocated to Mr Y, and 13 months after Mr Y moved out of the supported living accommodation. Statutory guidance says an assessment should be carried out over a suitable and reasonable timescale, and we would usually expect councils to complete assessments within four to six weeks. The Council did not do this. This was fault, which caused frustration and uncertainty to Ms X and Mr Y of not knowing what support Mr Y required.
46. The Council says when someone presents as not wanting support from it and the person has capacity, there is little role for the Council in being able to provide support or find out what support the person would like, without getting their direct views. The Council considers there was difficulty in it doing this and Mr Y contributed to the delay by not engaging with the social worker. The Council says there were times when Mr Y would not speak about his needs or what support he would like during visits from the social worker; he would cancel visits; and he would not respond to attempted communications from the social worker. I accept the Council did make repeated attempts to engage with Mr Y. But when these attempts did not prove successful, other options and approaches could have been considered by the Council. I asked the Council what approach it took when it became clear Mr Y did not always engage with the Council during the assessment process. It said its strategy was to have Mr Y’s trusted person, Ms X, present during visits. But given the little progress it made completing the assessment and the time that had passed, it could have considered taking a different approach and considered involving an independent advocate sooner. The Council did not do this. The first time the Council offered an independent advocate was when it sent its stage one complaint response to Ms X in June 2024. Mr Y engaged when this was offered and it is likely, on balance, he would have done so sooner had the Council considered and offered this sooner than it did. The Council’s delay in considering a different approach and the involvement of an independent advocate was fault. This caused frustration to Mr Y and Ms X.
47. In her complaint to the Council, Ms X told it she and Mr Y were not aware the assessment process was being carried out and they did not know what the assessment process involved. Statutory guidance says councils should tell the person how long their assessment will take and keep them informed throughout the process. The Council did not provide sufficient information about the assessment process or keep Mr Y and Ms X regularly informed throughout. This poor communication and lack of information given to Mr Y and Ms X about the assessment process was fault.
48. The Council has already taken some action to remedy the injustice. It has allocated Mr Y with a new social worker who completed a care assessment in September 2024. The outcome of the assessment was for Mr Y to be referred to mental health services, with no further care and support offered. During my investigation, Ms X told me this has been successful so far and Mr Y has engaged with the weekly visits from the mental health support worker. So, it seems to me his current support needs are being met. But the original mental health services referral was closed in February 2024. The Council says it was closed because the referral was made by Ms X, without Mr Y’s consent. But the referral was made by the doctor after the mental health review meeting with Mr Y in May 2023. The Council’s actions relating to the closure of this referral was fault. Had the referral not wrongly been closed, it is likely Mr Y would have received the weekly mental health support sooner. I have made a recommendation below to reflect this, which the Council has agreed to.
49. Sometimes we will recommend a financial payment to the person who brought their complaint to us. This might be to reimburse a person who has suffered a quantifiable financial loss, or it might be more of a symbolic payment which serves as an acknowledgement of the distress or difficulties they have been put through. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way a court might. Nor do we calculate a financial remedy based on what the cost of the service would have been to the provider.
50. We have published guidance to explain how we calculate remedies for people who have suffered injustice because of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the council had not occurred.

Back to top

Action

51. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Ms X and Mr Y by the fault I have identified, the Council will take the following actions within four weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Ms X and Mr Y for the frustration and uncertainty caused by the fault I have identified. This apology should be in accordance with our guidance Making an effective apology.
• Pay Mr Y £500 for the frustration and uncertainty caused by the fault I have identified.
52. Within three months of my final decision, the Council will also issue staff briefings to:
• Remind relevant staff care assessments should be carried out over an appropriate and reasonable timescale.
• Remind relevant staff service users should be kept informed during the assessment process about how long the assessment will take and what the process will involve.
• Ensure relevant staff are properly trained and understand when a service user may need an independent advocate arranged or a different approach considered to help the assessment process.
53. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

54. I uphold Ms X’s complaint and find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman