Summary: We found there was delay in arranging an Occupational Therapy assessment for Miss X. We found no evidence of prejudice or discrimination in the way the assessment was carried out. We recommended the Council apologised for the delay and made a modest payment to recognise the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains:
1. There was a delay in arranging an Occupational Therapy (OT) Assessment and when an OT visited her in December 2024, she was prejudicial, discriminatory and critical of Miss X and left.
2. That the Council underpaid her Personal Assistants (PAs) between 2017 and 2021.
3. That the Council recently sent her a bill for £160 which is for care contributions due in 2021 which she contests.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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).
3. 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)
4. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. I am investigating part a) of the complaint but not parts b) and c). The reasons for this are explained below.
6. We expect complaints to be brought to us within 12 months of someone becoming aware of the events subject to complaint. It would have been reasonable to expect a complaint to have been brought about the payment of PAs sooner. As these events occurred so long ago, we will not investigate these now.
7. We note the Council considers there were outstanding care fees of £160, but since Miss X’s complaint it has decided to write these off and not pursue payment from her. As these costs have been written-off we will not consider this part of Miss X’s complaint as there is nothing worthwhile we can achieve by doing so.
8. We are considering the events of the complaint from August 2024 when Miss X moved to the Council’s area until the Council’s response to her complaint about the matter in March 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Miss X and the Council 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

Background

11. Miss X moved from another local authority area to Solihull (the Council) in early August 2024. Miss X’s former council had put a package of care in place at the time of her move. The former council continued to fund Miss X’s care while the Council assessed her.
12. The Council accepted the referral, completed a social care assessment in early September and confirmed it would continue to fund the same level of care and support. The Council began funding the care Miss X needed via direct payments after a hand-over period of six weeks.

OT Referral

13. On 20 August, shortly after Miss X moved to Solihull, an Occupational Therapist (OT) from Miss X’s former council contacted the Council to refer her for Occupational Therapy. They asked the Council to arrange for an OT to visit Miss X to gather information and determine what ongoing support she needed.
14. Shortly afterwards the Council had some initial contact with Miss X by email and arranged the installation of grab rails based on information she provided. The Council stated a further contact asking Miss X to make contact to discuss her OT needs was not responded to. It appears this was not followed up by the Council either until Adult Social Care staff visited her for another purpose. The Council made a further OT referral on 24 September as a result.
15. Following the further referral, the Council assessed risk. It determined, due to the care package and support in place, there were no new or escalating risks. It wrote to Miss X confirming she was on a waiting list for an OT assessment and provided contact details should things change or escalate.
16. An OT was assigned to visit Miss X and assess her needs on 18 November. An OT visited Miss X at home around a month later. The Council says in the meantime several contacts had been made and messages left to arrange the appointment.
17. When the OT assessment took place in December 2024, Miss X complained that the OT who visited her was prejudicial, discriminated against her and was critical of her. She stated the visit was stressful. The Council’s records contain a fairly detailed summary of the visit. While there were points of disagreement noted, there is no indication that the officer was discriminatory or acted in an unreasonable manner. The assessment notes referenced possible equipment needed and stated the OT would need to assess and observe Miss X’s mobility and presentation and would refer to her manager. The case notes recorded that Miss X considered the OT was being judgemental and asked her to leave. As the visit took place in person, there is no evidence to show precisely what was said.
18. Miss X complained to the Council in March 2025. The complaint centred on the conduct of the December 2024 assessment rather than the delay in Council carrying it out. The Council commented on specific points raised by Miss X and explained the focus of OT assessments was observation and discussion. It found no fault in the OT actions and did not uphold the complaint.
19. The Council told us that OT involvement did continue and a full OT assessment has since been conducted equipment and adaptations being explored.
20. Miss X told me that she expects to be having surgery and she considered the delays and the conduct of the OT assessor at the December 2024 visit blocked adaptations and caused her distress.

What should have happened

21. The Council told us its target was to carry out an OT assessment within 28 days of a referral. It states that its policy is to carry out a risk assessment to decide the urgency of each case, and from this it determines the priority given.
22. The Council did not visit Miss X to complete an OT assessment within its target of 28 days of the referral in August 2024. This was partly due to demand on its services and partly because contacts between Miss X and the Council to arrange an assessment were initially unsuccessful and there was a delay following this up. The Council acknowledged the delay in arranging the OT assessment. The delay constitutes fault by the Council.
23. While I note Miss X states the officer who visited her was prejudicial and discriminatory, there is no evidence of discrimination or unreasonable conduct by the OT assessor at the visit with Miss X. While the notes indicate there was some tension and disagreement I do not find there was fault by the Council with regard to how the visit was conducted.
24. I note a further OT assessment has since taken place and equipment is being put in place. We have found there was delay arranging the December assessment. However, I have not found the conduct of the December assessment was flawed, or caused injustice in itself. I note a further assessment took place after the period we are investigating.
25. I found the initial delay in conducting an OT assessment was fault by the Council, so it should apologise to Miss X for this in writing and make a modest payment to reflect that the delay will have led to delays in providing equipment.

Back to top

Actions

26. Within four weeks of my final decision:
27. The Council should write to Miss X to apologise for the delay in carrying out the Occupational Therapy assessment that Miss X required. The apology should adhere to our guidance on making effective apologies. This can be found on our website, within our Guidance on Remedy here.
28. To recognise the impact of the initial delay in organising an OT assessment, which will have delayed organising equipment and taking actions that would benefit Miss X, the Council should pay her £100.

Back to top

Decision

29. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman