Summary: The Council was not at fault for the delays in finalising Mr X’s needs assessment

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council had failed to provide a support plan and arrange appropriate support to meet his eligible care needs, despite finalising his needs assessment in August 2024. He said this left him without the support and assistance he required and caused him distress and uncertainty.

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. 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

4. I have investigated what has happened since September 2024. Mr X previously complained to the Ombudsman and in that decision, we considered what happened up until August 2024. I cannot reinvestigate matters we have already considered.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I gave Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.

Background

10. Mr X made a referral to the Council in April 2024 for care and support. He highlighted his needs, including general anxiety disorder (GAD) and attention hyperactivity deficit disorder (ADHD). The Council visited Mr X and later in July produced a draft assessment. It offered enablement support of up to 12 weeks to help meet his outcomes from the enablement team which helps people promote goals around their skills, strength and abilities. Following which if Mr X had unmet outcomes, it said it could consider long term support such as a direct payment, as well as exploring whether Organisation A (which provided support for those with ADHD) could meet his needs. Organisation A agreed to offer Mr X a package of support including an assessment call, online workshops and coaching if this was necessary.
11. The enablement team contacted Mr X in late August 2024 and provided an overview of its service.
12. In a previous complaint Mr X complained to us that there were flaws in the assessment process and about lack or provision for his needs in the Council’s area. We did not find fault with the assessment process or the support offered to Mr X. The Council had offered a short-term intervention through its enablement team to ascertain whether he had long term care needs. It explained when Mr X finished accessing enablement it would consider if he had unmet needs.

What happened

13. The following is a summary of events relevant to the complaint.
14. In early September 2024 Mr X continued to raise queries about the support the enablement team and Organisation A could offer. In late September 2024 the social worker contacted Organisation A to ask if Mr X had accepted support. It responded that he had not taken up the offer initially and had some queries which it had responded to. Organisation A agreed to contact him again.
15. In late November the social worker contacted Organisation A again and it replied it had not heard form Mr X. The social worker also contacted the enablement team who had not had further contact from Mr X. It said Mr X had requested a formal agreement between him and it about the support it would provide but this was not something it could offer.
16. In mid-December 2024 the social worker contacted Mr X to ask if he still wanted to engage with the process. Mr X responded that he did not consider enablement was the right route for him and he did not want workshops with Organisation A. Mr X said he wanted direct payments to access specific services and resources to support him in managing his ADHD.
17. Organisation A ceased trading. The social worker advised Mr X of this in mid-January 2025 and provided him with signposting information to other provisions. Because of this, and because Mr X found the enablement team’s offer unsuitable, the social worker said they had finalised the assessment and recommended direct payments be explored.
18. The Council transferred Mr X’s case to its Adult Mental Health team including the recommendation for direct payments. Mr X was concerned that he was transferred to the Mental Health team which he considered to show the Council had a misunderstanding of ADHD. He requested that his case be passed to a team specialising in neurodiversity.
19. Mr X complained to the Council in late January 2025. His complaint included that there were continued delays with his assessment, about the decision to refer his case to the adult mental health team and about a lack of specific ADHD services in the Council’s area.
20. Around this time a team leader from the Mental Health Team contacted Mr X. They explained they would work with Mr X to look at how best to implement a support plan to meet his needs. Mr X responded that he was awaiting a response to his complaint.
21. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in early March 2025. It said it did not identify people with ADHD as having a mental illness, but that its mental health team was the best fit of social work skills to meet his needs. It acknowledged there was a gap in service since Organisation A stopped operating which it was trying to resolve. It said it was working to commission an alternative so those with ADHD were able to access information, advice and support.
22. Mr X remained unhappy as he considered the Adult Mental Health Team was not an appropriate service for ADHD support. The Council responded in mid-March. It said ADHD was not treated or classified by the Council as a mental health condition. However, for practical service delivery reasons it decided to put together some of the structures and systems needed for ADHD support alongside support for those with mental health or other needs. It said it was not practical to have specialist teams for each of the many and varied conditions that people in the council’s area might experience that lead to a need for ASC support.
23. The Council, in response to my enquiries, says Mr X had made no further contact since his complaint. He can still work with the Adult Mental Health Team should he wish to engage in future. It said it was still actively seeking an alternative provider to Organisation A.

Findings

24. There were delays in finalising Mr X’s needs assessment, but this was not because of Council fault. The Council considered Mr X’s comments and the support he requested before finalising the assessment. It offered appropriate support to meet Mr X’s assessed eligible care needs. Mr X decided he did not want to pursue enablement. That was his choice. It then passed the assessment to its Adult Mental Health Team to consider direct payments to meet his long-term support needs. The Council was not at fault.
25. Mr X was unhappy the Council placed him under the Adult Mental Health Team. The Council has explained it does not consider ADHD as a mental health condition but some of its systems and structures include ADHD support alongside support for those with mental health or other needs. It is for the Council to decide how to organise its resources. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in its decision to include support for those with ADHD within its Mental Health Team.
26. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider complaints of personal injustice caused by fault. There has been a gap in provision to Mr X due to Organisation A ceasing trading. However, this gap is not the Council’s fault. The Council is seeking to replace the service provided by Organisation A. If Mr X has overarching concerns about the provision of support for those with ADHD in the Council’s area it is open to him to approach his local councillor.
27. The Council says Mr X has not contacted it since March 2025. Mr X can still contact the Adult Mental Health Team for support with meeting his assessed eligible care needs.

Back to top

Decision

28. The Council is not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman