Summary: The Council delayed referring Mr X for an advocate, failed to record the reasonable adjustments it had agreed, delayed explaining why it needed to carry out an in person assessment and failed to respond to his complaint properly. An apology, payment to Mr X, for the Council to reopen the assessment and guidance for officers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complained the Council:
• failed to make the reasonable adjustments he requested;
• wrongly bullied, intimidated and harassed him by insisting he take part in a face-to-face meeting when he had already provided medical evidence to show he could not manage that; and
• failed to carry out a care needs assessment properly.
2. Mr X says the Council’s actions caused him significant distress and because the Council has not completed the Care Act assessment it has had an impact on his housing situation.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr X's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
7. 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

Reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities

8. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
9. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
10. The duty is 'anticipatory'. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.
11. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether an organisation has properly taken account of an individual's rights in its treatment of them.
12. We have published guidance for local authorities called "Equal Access: Getting it right for people with disabilities". This looked at complaints we received about this topic and offers good practice advice to councils.

The Care and support statutory guidance (the guidance)

13. The assessment and eligibility process is one of the most important elements of the care and support system. The process must be person-centred throughout, involving the person and supporting them to have choice and control. (paragraph 6.1 of the guidance)
14. An 'assessment' must always be appropriate and proportionate. It may come in different formats and can be carried out in various ways, including but not limited to:
• a face-to-face assessment;
• a supported self-assessment, which should use similar assessment materials as used in other forms of needs or carers' assessments, but where the person completes the assessment themselves and the local authority assures itself that it is an accurate reflection of the person's needs (for example, by consulting with other relevant professionals and people who know the person with their consent);
• an online or phone assessment, which can be a proportionate way of carrying out assessments (for example where the person's needs are less complex or where the person is already known to the local authority and it is carrying out an assessment following a change in their needs or circumstances);
• a joint assessment, where relevant agencies work together to avoid the person undergoing multiple assessments;
• a combined assessment, where an adult's assessment is combined with a carer's assessment and/or an assessment relating to a child so that interrelated needs are properly captured and the process is as efficient as possible. ((paragraph 6.3 of the guidance)
15. People may approach a local authority for an assessment, or be referred by a third party, for a number of reasons. The 'assessment' which they receive must follow the core statutory obligations, but the process is flexible and can be adapted to best fit with the person's needs, wishes and goals. The nature of the assessment will not always be the same for all people, and depending on the circumstances, it could range from an initial contact or triage process which helps a person with lower needs to access support in their local community, to a more intensive, ongoing process which requires the input of a number of professionals over a longer period of time. (paragraph 6.4 of the guidance)
16. From an early stage local authorities should consider whether the individual would have substantial difficulty in being involved in the assessment process and if so consider the need for independent advocacy. Local authorities should also consider whether the person may have difficulty communicating (for example those with autistic spectrum disorder or profound and multiple learning disabilities) and whether a specialist or interpreter may be needed to support communication. (paragraph 6.23 of the guidance)
17. In assuring self-assessments local authorities may consider it useful to seek the views of those who are in regular contact with the person self-assessing, such as their carer(s) or other appropriate people from their support network, and any professional involved in providing care. In doing this, the local authority should first seek the person's consent. This may be helpful in allowing local authorities to build an understanding of the individual's desires, outcomes, needs, and the impact on their wellbeing. (paragraph 6.47 of the guidance)

The Council’s adult social care and public health policies, procedures and staff guidance

18. It refers to the Care Act 2014 introducing a new approach to assessment. It says the assessment must be appropriate and proportionate which means assessments can vary in approach from being light touch to a more comprehensive face-to-face assessment, including supported self-assessment, combined assessments and integrated assessments.
19. When undertaking an assessment of needs staff must always consider the full extent of the person's needs before making a decision about eligibility for care and support. That means that the completion of an initial assessment alone is not sufficient to determine an adult's eligibility for care and support.
20. Staff should consider if the person has any specific communication needs which could be met through reasonable adjustments.
21. Where a person seems to have problems with getting involved staff have to consider as early as possible whether the person has substantial difficulty in doing so. Any person who has substantial difficulty in the areas listed will need an appropriate individual or independent advocate to support their involvement.
22. When preparing for an assessment staff should decide the most appropriate way of conducting the assessment such as:
• face-to-face;
• supported self-assessment;
• online;
• telephone;
• joint or combined assessment;
• specialist assessment.
23. An assessment that is proportionate and appropriate will be as extensive as required to establish the extent of the person's needs. This includes tailoring the assessment to the person's needs and preferences and choosing the most appropriate method of assessment. Most assessments should involve a face-to-face assessment.
24. For self-assessments it says the supported self-assessment process is only complete when the local authority has assured itself it is an accurate and complete reflection of the person's needs and outcomes and the impact of needs on their well-being.
25. It refers to the guidance which stresses the assurance process should not repeat the full assessment itself. However, where the supported self-assessment is not comprehensive and/or accurate it may be necessary to repeat part or all of the assessment to make an eligibility decision and meet the person’s care and support needs.

What happened

26. Mr X is homeless and has various medical issues. In September 2024 Mr X self referred to adult social care. Mr X explained he had multiple disabilities and communication issues which meant he could only communicate in writing.
27. The Council contacted Mr X to ask for details of when he was available for an in-person meeting. On 24 September Mr X explained he could not attend an in-person meeting and was speech impaired/non-verbal. Mr X said he could attend a virtual meeting with an advocate and asked the Council to refer him for one. Mr X said he needed all questions in writing at least 48 hours in advance of any meetings due to cognitive disabilities. Mr X told the Council he would not have his camera on as he had body dysmorphia. Mr X said he needed meetings videoed and the video recording and a clear transcript sent to him by email.
28. The Council asked Mr X for details of his GP so it could make contact. Mr X provided the Council with medical and other evidence but said he did not consent for the Council to contact his GP, psychiatrist or clinical psychologist. Mr X provided an address where he was sofa surfing but made clear he did not consent to the Council attending the address or sending letters to it. Mr X reiterated he could not take part in an in-person meeting and needed the Council to refer him for an advocate.
29. The Council arranged a meeting for 26 November. Before that meeting Mr X provided written self-assessment responses to the queries the Council had provided.
30. At the online meeting on 26 November Mr X did not have an advocate although a housing solicitor accompanied him. Following the meeting Mr X emailed the Council to remind it he needed a reasonable adjustment for questions to be posed in advance so he could plan his responses.
31. A Council officer spoke to Mr X by text on 4 December and made a referral for an independent advocate. During that text call the Council agreed to share any questions for the GP with Mr X first. The Council subsequently arranged a follow-up meeting on 9 January 2025.
32. On 8 January 2025 in the evening the Council sent Mr X the list of questions for the following day as well as the questions for the GP.
33. The virtual meeting took place on 9 January, with Mr X’s advocate in attendance. During that meeting the Council’s social worker suggested six hours outreach support per week initially. Mr X raised concerns about that as he believed he needed eight hours support per day. The notes record Mr X left the meeting after the social worker began explaining the Council needed further verification and clarification of Mr X’s health needs.
34. Following that meeting Mr X emailed the Council to allege bullying, to repeat he could not take part in face-to-face meetings and to reiterate he did consent for the Council to contact his GP. The Council’s social worker apologised and suggested another meeting to discuss the outcome of the assessment. The social worker said they may be able to send Mr X a draft of the social care assessment the following week if approved by a manager.
35. Mr X chased the Council for the draft assessment on 21 January when he also noted he had not received an invite for a meeting.
36. The Council wrote to Mr X at his sofa surfing address on 24 January to invite him to a face-to-face assessment after the social worker had taken advice from a manager. That letter told Mr X the Council needed a face-to-face meeting to confirm Care Act eligibility and verify medical information as he was a new service user to its team. The Council accepts it should not have posted the letter to Mr X’s sofa surfing address as he had not given the Council permission to do so. The Council apologised to Mr X.
37. Mr X responded to the Council to reiterate he could not attend an in-person meeting. In response the Council said it had not completed the assessment as it had not contacted the agencies involved in Mr X’s care. The Council said it could explore different ways to support Mr X to take part in a face-to-face assessment. The Council made clear social services needed to liaise directly with his support network as he was new to the Council’s services and so it could carry out verification checks. The Council suggested carrying out the assessment once Mr X had secured a home address.
38. Mr X’s GP contacted the Council in February 2025 to verify Mr X was registered with it. The GP explained Mr X had not given consent to share further information.
39. The Council wrote to Mr X on 10 February. The Council told Mr X it needed a face-to-face meeting and verification of his support network via direct liaison with professionals. The Council explained it had therefore not completed the care assessment. The Council said because Mr X had said he would not engage in a face-to-face assessment the Council would close the case but Mr X could contact the Council again when he was ready to engage.
40. Mr X put in a complaint.
41. In April 2025 the Council responded to the complaint. The Council explained anyone who takes part in a social care needs assessment needed to be seen in person. The Council also said if it put care support into place that would also need to be delivered in person. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s diagnoses. The Council said for someone like Mr X with complex health needs it needed to carry out a face-to-face assessment which is why it had decided that was necessary in his case. The Council explained the documents completed to that point did not provide enough information for the Council to complete the assessment. The Council also explained Mr X’s refusal to provide consent to liaise with his health network added to the delay. The Council said it would normally write to the GP so that Mr X’s needs were properly assessed based on accurate and up-to-date information.
42. Mr X asked the Council to move the complaint to stage two. The Council responded to that on 19 June. The Council said it did not have anything to add to the stage one response and that it had considered reasonable adjustments. The Council said it respected Mr X’s privacy but it was usual practice for health and social care professionals to share relevant information on a need-to-know basis to support assessments and identify how health needs impact on Care Act eligibility. The Council accepted an in-person assessment may not be possible for Mr X but noted it needed to confirm ordinary residence and ID. The Council said a reasonable adjustment would be to briefly switch on the camera so the social worker could confirm Mr X’s identity, following which the camera could be switched off for the remainder of the assessment.
43. The Council subsequently wrote to Mr X on 4 August to explain to conduct a thorough and up-to-date assessment it needed to arrange a meeting on teams where his face was visible and needed consent to speak to his GP surgery and other relevant health professionals. The Council said that would enable the social worker to complete the social care assessment. The Council explained it had to protect the public purse and therefore needed to ask for details and clarification around his needs. The Council made clear that could not be provided only by Mr X and he had refused permission for the Council to contact health professionals involved in his care. The Council explained the face-to-face assessment would involve a teams assessment with Mr X’s face visible on camera and the Council would need official supporting evidence provided directly from his health network.
44. In response to my enquiry on the complaint the Council proposed a way forward which involved:
• reopening the care assessment and allocating a new social worker;
• agreeing to work by email only with Mr X, represented by an advocate;
• agreeing a written verification plan involving putting questions to Mr X for him to put those to his GP and to record consent boundaries; and
• only offering an in-person option if appropriate/necessary with a clear explanation.
45. The Council also agreed to offer Mr X a written apology and implement service learning around flagging, consent explanations and housing interface messaging. The Council offered that remedy to reflect good administrative practice rather than because it accepted any fault.

Analysis

46. Mr X says the Council failed to put in place appropriate reasonable adjustments for him, pressured him into taking part in a face-to-face assessment when that is not required and delayed providing him with an independent advocate.
47. The evidence I have seen satisfies me Mr X asked the Council to refer him for an independent advocate when he approached the Council for an assessment in September 2024. I have seen no evidence the Council made any attempt to identify an independent advocate until 4 December 2024. That was after the Council had already completed the first online assessment with Mr X. Delay arranging an independent advocate for Mr X is fault.
48. I am satisfied the documentary evidence shows Mr X asked the Council to put in place various reasonable adjustments at an early stage. That included no face-to-face meetings, for the Council to provide any questions at least 48-hours in advance of any online meeting and for the Council to send him video recordings and a transcript of any meeting afterwards.
49. I am satisfied the Council put in place some reasonable adjustments for Mr X. I say that because although the Council initially asked for a face-to-face assessment it agreed to arrange an online assessment in line with Mr X’s request for a reasonable adjustment. I am satisfied that was in place for both online meetings which took place, with the exception of a brief period where Mr X switched his camera on so the Council could verify his identity. I therefore could not say the Council had failed to put any reasonable adjustments into place.
50. As we make clear in our guidance, which I refer to in paragraph 12, we would expect the Council to make a record of the reasonable adjustments agreed. We would also expect the Council to confirm with Mr X what reasonable adjustments it had agreed to. I have seen no evidence the Council did that in this case. That is fault. I also consider it likely failing to clarify what reasonable adjustments the Council had agreed to meant some of the reasonable adjustments Mr X requested, such as the Council sending questions to him 48 hours in advance of meetings, were missed. In fact, I note the Council did not send Mr X the questions for his GP until the evening before the 9 January meeting. That is fault.
51. I understand Mr X’s concern given the Council asked him for a face-to-face meeting in January 2025. Mr X says that was not appropriate as he had provided medical evidence to show he could not meet face-to-face. Mr X is right to say the guidance does not require a face-to-face assessment. However, a face-to-face assessment is one of the options open to the Council. As I said in paragraph 4, it is not my role to comment on the merits of the Council’s decision unless there is evidence of fault in how it reached that decision.
52. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council only asked Mr X to take part in a face-to-face meeting because it was not satisfied the two online meetings it had carried out had provided it with sufficient information to reach a decision about whether Mr X had eligible care needs. That is a judgement matter and not one I could comment on.
53. I have some concerns though with how the Council communicated with Mr X about the assessment process and the decision that a face-to-face meeting was required. First, when arranging the meeting in January 2025 the Council did not make clear the purpose of the meeting or that it did not have enough information to complete the assessment. Failure to provide Mr X with clear information about the purpose of the January 2025 meeting is fault.
54. I am also concerned the Council did not properly explain the reason why it needed to carry out a face-to-face assessment until it responded to Mr X’s complaint. By that time the Council had already closed Mr X’s case. That again is fault. I do not view the Council’s communications with Mr X about the need for a face-to-face assessment as bullying but I can understand why Mr X saw it that way when he had not received a proper explanation.
55. The Council, in its response to my enquiry, suggests it might be possible to conclude the assessment using an online meeting where Mr X only switches his camera on temporarily to allow the Council to verify his identity. That is a different position to the position the Council took when it closed the care assessment. Given the Council’s position now I am unclear why the Council could not have arranged a further online assessment in 2025 as nothing has changed between then and now.
56. I have some further concerns about how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint. In response to the Council’s stage one complaint response Mr X set out in great detail his disagreement with the Council’s response. In that Mr X highlighted various areas where he said the Council’s response was inaccurate. I am concerned to note the stage two complaint response did not engage with any of those issues. That is fault. The stage two complaint response also suggested the only issues outstanding were verification of ordinary residence and identity, rather than any concerns about the Council not having sufficient information to reach a decision about eligibility. That again suggests some confusion in the Council’s response.
57. I consider it likely the delay appointing an advocate, misleading communications about the purpose of the January 2025 meeting and failure to properly explain the Council’s reasoning for asking for a face-to-face meeting all contributed to Mr X’s lack of trust in the Council’s process. Had the Council handled the situation properly and fully explained everything to Mr X it is possible he would have been able to engage with the process and complete the assessment. I therefore consider Mr X has suffered frustration, distress and some uncertainty. I could not, however, speculate about whether Mr X has missed out on care provision as that will depend on the outcome of the care assessment.
58. I consider the Council’s offer to reopen the assessment process, which I outline in paragraph 44, a suitable starting point for the assessment process. I recommended though the Council ensure it provides Mr X with clear information about the matters it needs to clarify before it can reach a decision about whether he is eligible for care services. The Council should provide that to Mr X before any meeting is arranged. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.
59. I also recommended the Council apologise to Mr X and pay him £500 to reflect his distress and uncertainty. I further recommended the Council provide guidance to officers in adult social care about the need to record where reasonable adjustments have been agreed and to share that information with the person involved. The Council should also provide guidance to those dealing with complaints about the need to ensure substantive issues are covered in compliant responses. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Action

60. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Mr X for the distress and uncertainty he experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet;
• pay Mr X £500;
• contact Mr X to arrange a care act assessment which should involve:
1. a new social worker;
2. agreement to work by email only with advocacy involved;
3. an explanation about the outstanding matters the Council needs to clarify;
4. to agree a written verification plan whereby the Council will pose questions to Mr X for him to respond to/discuss with his GP;
5. discuss consent; and
6. only if considered proportionate or necessary, offer an in-person assessment with a clear explanation to Mr X about the reasons why the Council is requesting that.
• provide guidance to officers in adult social care about the need to record where reasonable adjustments have been agreed and to share that information with the person;
• provide guidance to those dealing with complaints about the need to ensure substantive issues are covered in complaint responses.
61. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

62. I find fault causing injustice. The Council will take action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman