Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed completing a social care needs assessment and that it has denied him getting medical treatment by making false statements. While there was a delay in completing the care needs assessment, this did not affect the outcome as Mr X continues to refuse to accept the care offered to meet his assessed needs.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council delayed completing a social care needs assessment and that it has denied him getting medical treatment by making false statements.
2. Mr X says that he is being denied all help and care and that the stress has caused him to go blind and physically paralysed him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
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. Mr X has also complained that the Council is holding false information about him and is refusing his right of rectification. Mr X made a subject access request to the Council in 2024 and then wrote asking it to correct the data it held about him. The Council’s response dated 2 May 2024 made some changes and an informative note has been added to the records. However, the Council did not make all the changes Mr X requested and has explained the reasons for this. I am therefore satisfied the Council has dealt with Mr X’s rectification request. If Mr X disagrees with the decision reached by the Council then the appropriate way to challenge this is via the Office of Information Commissioner and not the Ombudsman. We would not consider a complaint about rectification as there is another agency better placed to consider it.
6. The Ombudsman does not normally consider complaints unless the person raises the issue within 12 months of them first becoming aware that something had happened which affected them. It is my understanding that the police shared information with the Council over five years ago and that Mr X has been seeking rectification since that time. Therefore, this is a late complaint and I could only consider it now if there are continuous good reasons why Mr X has not complained to the Ombudsman sooner. Mr X has made complaints about other issues and councils previously to the Ombudsman and so I cannot see any reason why we would now exercise discretion to investigate this late complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr 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

9. Mr X’s father, Mr Z, complained on his behalf to the Council in January 2025. The Council’s response dated 7 February set out the issues it could and could not consider. It explained it could not consider issues relating to the police or courts and that it had responded in full about the data held and the right to rectification in May 2024. The Council did however, consider issues relating to adult social care and its contact with Mr X.
10. Social work staff visited Mr X at home in December 2024. Mr Z was not present at the meeting but had listened on the telephone to the conversation that took place. Following the meeting, the Council took the position that Mr X had refused to have a care needs assessment and that this was the reason the Council did not offer any support. Mr Z argued this was not true and that his son, Mr X, had participated.
11. In the complaint response, the Council acknowledged that the social work staff had been able to gain information during the meeting to enable it to undertake a care act assessment. This included them using observational skills to assess various aspects of Mr X’s home environment. It was noted that Mr X’s responses were mostly concerned with the data the Council held which he believes is incorrect and needs to be rectified. The Council upheld the complaint and said that a care act assessment would be completed and shared with Mr X. It confirmed there had been some miscommunication and that Mr X’s refusal was for the care and support but that he had engaged in the assessment process. The Council apologised for any distress caused.
12. Social work staff visited Mr X at his home again on 18 February 2025 and completed a care act assessment. They assessed Mr X as meeting the eligibility requirements for care and support. However, Mr X has declined a package of care until the Council deals with the rectification of his records. During the visit the Council discussed the need for it to complete a financial assessment in the future if a package of care is provided.

Analysis

13. The Council upheld a complaint made on behalf of Mr X about the failure to complete a care act needs assessment and that it wrongly said this was because Mr X refused an assessment. The Council has apologised and now carried out an assessment and offered a package of care to Mr X. However, Mr X has refused the care package saying he wants the Council to deal with the rectification of data first.
14. The rectification of data is a separate matter that has been responded to by the Council. Mr X disagrees with the decision reached by the Council and should therefore take this matter to the Office of the Information Commissioner which is the appropriate body to deal with data concerns.
15. The Council has determined that Mr X is mentally competent to make decisions about his care. Mr X has disabilities which mean he is unable to manage all his personal care needs alone. However, the Council cannot compel Mr X to accept the package of care offered. The information I have seen indicates the offer to arrange a package of care remains open and Mr X can contact the Council at any time to accept the offer.
16. I note that the Council did not complete the assessment during the first visit in December 2024 and this is fault. However, I am not persuaded this caused Mr X any significant injustice because when a package of care was offered he did not accept it. Even if the assessment had been completed in December 2024, I am not persuaded the outcome would have been any different.

Back to top

Decision

17. I will complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault causing a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman