Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed completing his care assessment. Mr X says this meant he did not receive suitable support which has impacted his health. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault which caused injustice. The Ombudsman is satisfied the action taken by the Council has remedied the injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council’s handling of his care assessment. Specifically, he complains:

1. The Council delayed completing his care assessment;
2. The care assessment was completed by an unsuitable assessor; and
3. The care assessment does not meet his needs.

2. Mr X says this meant he did not receive the support he required which impacted his physical health and emotional wellbeing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. Mr X has not completed the Council’s complaints process for parts b and c of this complaint. As I have said above, we cannot investigate matters unless the Council has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. For this reason, I will not investigate parts b and c of this complaint.
7. I will only investigate part a of this complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered all comments received before making this final decision.
9. I also considered the relevant statutory guidance, and Council’s policy, as set out below.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

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. 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.
12. The Council uses a priority assessment tool to prioritise referrals for care needs assessment. It says low priority includes people who have requested advice and an assessment visit.
13. The Council’s priority assessment tool says high priority includes people who currently have no care package and there is evidence it is urgently required; have safeguarding issues; and/or are at imminent risk of homelessness with no secure accommodation after three months.

What happened

14. In February 2022, Mr X’s family member contacted the Council to request support on his behalf. Officer A contacted Mr X the next day.
15. Between February and April, Officer A contacted Mr X requesting information about the support he required and providing him with information and directing him to sources of support. They offered him six weeks of short-term support to support him with a specific task he identified. They asked for his consent to make a referral to the Adult and Autism Team.
16. In May, Officer B from the Adult and Autism Team contacted Mr X several times.
17. In June, Officer B told Mr X if they did not hear from him, they would close his case. Mr X contacted Officer B and arranged a phone call.
18. In July, Officer B referred Mr X for an adult social care assessment by the Adult and Autism Team. It assessed Mr X’s request for assessment as low priority. The Council told Mr X there was a waiting list for an assessment.
19. In February 2023, the Council received information that Mr X was at risk of homelessness. The Council reassessed Mr X’s request for a care assessment as high priority.
20. In April, the Council wrote to Mr X. It told him he was still on the waiting list and asked him to contact the Council if his needs had changed.
21. In early July, Mr X contacted the Council and complained about the delay in completing his care assessment. Officer C apologised for the delay and explained there was an increase in care assessment referrals, and he was still on the waiting list. They sent him a questionnaire to complete to help the care assessment. They also sent him information about the complaints process.
22. In mid-July, the Council allocated Officer D to complete Mr X’s care assessment. Officer D contacted Mr X several times to organise the assessment. Mr X told them he would not complete the care assessment until they supported him with another issue.
23. In September, the Council offered Mr X £250 for the uncertainty caused by its delay completing his care assessment.
24. In late October, the Council completed his care assessment. It assessed three hours support per week would meet his needs. Mr X told the Council this would not meet his needs and declined the support.

Analysis

25. The statutory guidance says a care assessment should be carried out over an appropriate and reasonable timescale taking into account the urgency of needs and considering any changes. We expect councils should complete assessments in a timescale proportionate to the complexity of the issues, and normally within six weeks. The Council did consider Mr X’s change in circumstances and reprioritised his referral in line with its priority assessment tool. However, it took twelve months to offer Mr X a care assessment. This delay is fault.
26. After offering the care assessment, it took the Council a further three months to complete the assessment. I am satisfied this further delay was because Mr X chose not to complete the assessment at the earliest opportunity. Therefore, I do not find the Council at fault for this further delay.
27. The care assessment assessed Mr X needed three hours of support per week. Mr X declined the support offered by the Council. On balance, it is likely that if the Council had completed the care assessment without delay, the Council would have assessed Mr X’s needs were similar. I consider it to also be likely Mr X would not have accepted similar support offered at an earlier time. Therefore, I consider the delay did not cause a loss of provision for Mr X. I consider the delay did cause Mr X avoidable and unnecessary uncertainty. The Council offered Mr X £250 to remedy the uncertainty caused by this delay. In considering the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, I consider this amount is appropriate and proportionate for the level of injustice caused.
28. The statutory guidance says councils should tell the individual how long their assessment will take and keep them informed about this throughout the process. I am satisfied the Council updated Mr X during the twelve months he was waiting for an assessment, and throughout the three months it took to complete the assessment. I find no fault with the Council’s communication.
29. The Council tells the Ombudsman that waiting times have improved since Mr X’s care assessment. It says the current average wait for a care assessment in the Adult and Autism Team is now under ten weeks. This is still longer than the six weeks the Ombudsman considers to be reasonable. It is also longer than the current average wait for a care assessment within other Council adult social care services. The Council tells the Ombudsman it is currently taking action to address the discrepancy in waiting times across the services. I am satisfied with the action the Council is taking, and therefore further service improvement recommendations are not proportionate in this case.

Back to top

Decision

30. I find fault causing injustice. I am satisfied the action the Council has taken remedies the injustice to Mr X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman