Summary: There was some fault by the Council in its delay completing an assessment of Mr X’s care and support needs after he moved home. The Council has already apologised, which is a suitable remedy for the distress and frustration caused. There was no fault in the Council’s assessment of Mr X’s eligible needs.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s assessment of his needs for care and support. In particular, he says the Council:
1. Failed to assess his needs before he moved into his new home
2. Took too long to assess his needs after he moved
3. Failed to accurately record the details of his needs in its assessment
4. Communicated poorly, including during a telephone call in February 2024 in which Mr X says an officer was rude.
2. As a result, Mr X says he remains without the care and support he needs. He wants the Council to complete its assessment so he can use Direct Payments to employ a Personal Assistant.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the complaint and the information Mr X provided.
7. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
8. I referred to the Ombudsman's Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.
9. Mr X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Adult social care assessments

10. 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.
11. The Care Act 2014 gives councils a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan. 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. 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.

What happened

12. Mr X is Disabled and has care and support needs. He used to live with family but wanted to move to live independently.
13. In early 2024, Mr X found a suitable property. In February 2024, he called the Council to ask for financial help to lay carpets and buy white goods. The Council’s note of the call says:
• He called the adult social care duty team, because his assigned worker was off sick
• Mr X said he couldn’t move into his new home until it had suitable flooring
• He wanted the Council to help him meet the cost of this
• It explained that it was not the correct department for this, adult social care does not provide funding.
• Mr X hung up
14. Mr X called a second time. The Council’s note of the call says:
• Mr X wanted the Council to complete a funding assessment for carpets and white goods.
• He wanted the Council to help him by filling in the form
• Mr X was “rude and angry and condescending”
• The Council told him his allocated worker would contact him when back at work
• Mr X said he would keep calling back
15. Mr X says he needed the Council to complete a referral form to a charity for funding. This is what he says he tried to communicate in his calls. Mr X also says he heard the officer on the phone have a rude conversation about him with another officer.
16. In late February, Mr X told the Council he would be moving into his new home in a few weeks. He told the Council he needed an advocate to support him with the social care assessment. The Council told Mr X it would look into an advocate and then contact him to arrange a date for the assessment.
17. Mr X’s allocated officer (Officer 1) referred Mr X to an advocacy service in early March. There is no evidence of the outcome of this referral.
18. Mr X then moved home. Mr X called the Council after he moved chasing up his assessment. The Council’s records show it noted that Mr X’s new home was in a different area and so came under a different team. The note says the team’s manager would assign a new officer within two weeks. Mr X told the Council again that he needed an advocate for the assessment. The Council made a new referral to the advocacy service.
19. In late March, the Council spoke to Mr X. It said the advocacy service had responded that Mr X could advocate for himself. Mr X said he needed an advocate because of his experience of the Council not recording what he said accurately. The note of the call says Mr X confirmed to the Council that he would not agree to an assessment without an advocate present.
20. In mid-April, the advocacy service at first said it would offer Mr X three sessions for the assessment. It then told the Council it would not work with Mr X because of his behaviour towards its staff.
21. The Council allocated Officer 2 to Mr X’s case. Officer 2 completed a needs assessment with Mr X at his home at the end of April. This recorded that Mr X’s family were meeting some of Mr X’s needs, including helping him with shopping and cleaning. Mr X told the Council he did not want to rely on his family. The notes of the assessment say Mr X stressed his need for support with communicating with others, especially services and companies. The Council’s assessment of Mr X’s needs in this area concluded that Mr X can communicate his own wishes and needs.
22. In mid-May, the Council responded to a complaint from Mr X. It said:
• The Council could have signposted Mr X better to its welfare service during the call in February. However, it was correct to tell him social care could not fund flooring.
• It would record his preference for digital communication
• Officer 1 had been off work, which is why they did not respond to his calls.
• It had assigned Officer 2, who had started the care assessment.
23. In mid-June, Mr X called the Council to chase up the outcome of his assessment.
24. In late June, Officer 3 contacted Mr X and arranged to visit him in mid-July. Officer 3 produced a new draft assessment. This said that Mr X wanted support with personal care, meal preparation, domestic tasks, and dealing with correspondence.
25. The Council sent this draft assessment to Mr X in mid-August. In late August, Officer 4 produced an updated assessment. This identified the same needs as in April and July.
26. Mr X complained to the Council again in September. He said:
• The Council had delayed completing the assessment
• Officer 1 failed to assess him before he moved into his new home
• The Council delayed allocating a new officer once he moved
• Once Officer 2 was allocated, things seemed to progress but then slowed again
27. Throughout September, the Council made various changes to its assessment of Mr X. These were in response to his comments and requests for amendments. None of the changes altered the eligible needs identified or the indicative budget to meet them. Mr X wanted the assessment to say he needed support with communication and did not want it to refer to any support from his family.
28. The Council made further amendments to the assessment in October and November.
29. In December, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It said:
• It had already responded to Mr X’s complaint about Officer 1
• Officer 2 was off work unexpectedly, which is why it allocated Officer 3. Officer 3 was then also off work unexpectedly.
• It accepted the number of workers allocated was disruptive and delayed progressing the assessment and apologised for this.
• It had not refused to assess him before he moved. The delay was because Mr X asked for an advocate.
30. At the time of his complaint to the Ombudsman, Mr X remained in dispute with the Council about the content of the assessment. The Council told Mr X it could not create a support plan without an agreed assessment. And it was the support plan which would enable Mr X to access a personal budget and employ a personal assistant.

My findings

31. I set out my findings on the complaint in the order they appear in paragraph one.

Failed to assess before moving

32. The Council tried to arrange an assessment with Mr X before he moved. However, he said he needed an advocate. There was fault by the Council in failing to follow up the first referral for advocacy in early March 2024. However, it made a new referral less than two weeks later. On balance, it is unlikely this delay caused Mr X any injustice. The advocacy service took several weeks to respond to the referral and ultimately refused to work with Mr X. It is unlikely, therefore, that the Council would have assessed Mr X before he moved in any event.

Delay assessing once moved

33. The Council was at fault for delay progressing Mr X’s assessment once he moved. Officer 2 assessed Mr X in April but did not share a draft assessment with him. Officer 3 did a new assessment in July but the Council did not share it until August.
34. I cannot say that but for these delays, Mr X would have had the care and support he needs in place sooner. This is because, at the time of his complaint to us, Mr X remained in dispute with the Council about the content of the assessment. However, it caused him avoidable distress and frustration, which is an injustice. In its complaint response, the Council accepted this delay was fault and apologised to Mr X. An apology is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Accuracy of assessments

35. The Council’s assessment of Mr X’s eligible care needs has been largely the same since April 2024. The Council’s role is not only to record what Mr X wants or what he says about his needs. It is also to make an objective assessment, based on all the evidence, of whether Mr X has eligible care and support needs and if so, what he needs to meet them. There is no fault in how the Council conducted its assessment of Mr X’s needs. Where a Council has carried out an assessment properly, we cannot question its conclusions.
36. I understand that Mr X wants the assessment to be an entirely accurate account of his lived experience. The Council has accommodated this, and amended the wording in the assessment at Mr X’s request. But the changes have not, and are unlikely to, change the Council’s decision about what Mr X’s eligible needs are or what the indicative budget available to meet them will be.
37. Mr X has eligible care and support needs that remain unmet. But this is not because of fault by the Council. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it is now planning to produce a draft support plan to share with Mr X to try to move forward. This is welcome.

Communication

38. As already found, the repeated changes in allocated officer caused delays and poor communication. The Council has already apologised for this.
39. Mr X complained about the Council’s conduct of two telephone calls in February 2024. I was not present for the calls. This makes it difficult to arrive at sound conclusions about tone or exactly what was said. However, both Mr X and the Council, in its note, say the other was rude. It is likely, therefore, the call was challenging for both parties. There was clearly a misunderstanding about the reason for Mr X’s call. He wanted the Council to complete a referral to a charity on his behalf. But the Council thought he was asking adult social care to pay for his flooring. I cannot say how or why this misunderstanding arose. I cannot, therefore, even on balance, find the Council acted with fault.

Back to top

Decision

40. I have completed my investigation. There was some fault by the Council. It has already taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman