Summary: Ms X complains on behalf of Mr Y that the Council wrongly reduced his attendance at a day care centre causing distress. We found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. We found fault as the Council delayed in responding to Ms X’s complaint. The Council has accepted it was at fault and already apologised to Ms X and Mr Y which is suitable action for it to take. We have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains on behalf of Mr Y that the Council has wrongly reduced his care and support and failed to deal with a safeguarding concern about the impact of this on him. Ms X says the Council failed to properly respond to the complaint or requests to reinstate the service. Ms X says Mr Y’s health and wellbeing have declined since the reduction in service, and he wants it reinstated to the previous level.

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 have investigated Ms X’s concerns from February 2024 when the Council reviewed Mr Y’s care and support plan. I have not investigated any concerns raised about Mr Y’s debt from 2023 and the Council’s failure to respond to the safeguarding concerns raised by Ms X in 2023. This is because they are a late complaint and it was open to Ms X and Mr Y to have made a complaint to us about these matters before now.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

8. What follows is a brief chronology of key events. It does not include all the information I reviewed as part of my investigation.

Background

9. Mr Y has an acquired brain injury (ABI) and attended a day centre for two days a week since 2008 provided by the Council through a care and support plan. The day centre provides support to Mr Y. The care and support plan includes information about Mr Y’s brain injury, his health difficulties and support needs.
10. The Council financially assessed Mr Y as being able to contribute £23.92 a week towards the cost of his community care at the day centre. The assessed amount did not depend on how many days he attended the day centre. Mr Y accrued a debt in 2023 as he did not pay the charges. Ms X who works at the day centre made a safeguarding concern to the Council in June 2023 about the impact of the debt on Mr Y but says the Council did not respond. The day centre told the Council during 2023 Mr Y only attended the day centre for one day each week. Ms X says the reduction in attendance was due to mental health issues and fatigue because of the brain injury.

Events in 2024

11. In February 2024 a social worker reviewed Mr Y’s care and support plan at the day centre, and Ms X and Mr Y attended. The Council says it has constantly recognised Mr Y’s cognitive and communications impairment from his brain injury in assessment and reviews. This informs how it communicates with him and supports his well-being. The Council confirms it makes reasonable adjustments to support Mr Y’s involvement in the discussions. This includes providing explanations in an accessible way and allowing extra time when needed.
12. The review discussed Mr Y’s assessed contribution towards his day centre placement. Ms X said she was supporting Mr Y to contact the Council’s debt management team and set up a repayment plan. It was agreed the placement would continue at two days a week.
13. The day centre told the Council Mr Y’s attendance had fallen to 50 %. The Council noted its records showed his attendance at the day centre was consistently below 50% of the commissioned sessions. The Council confirms it has a duty under the Care Act 2014 to ensure that services are proportionate and meet an individual’s assessed needs and ability to benefit from the provision. When a person is not attending the service as planned, it considers it appropriate to review the suitability of the arrangement. Because of this the Council considered whether the level of provision remained appropriate and effective in meeting Mr Y’s assessed care and support needs. And whether to drop Mr Y’s attendance to reflect his actual use of the service and engagement levels, rather than for any financial reason.
14. The social worker attempted to speak to Ms X about a reduction in Mr Y’s days but had no reply to the telephone call. The social worker spoke to Mr Y about his fall in attendance. The Council says Mr Y confirmed he was happy to reduce his attendance to one day a week starting 25 March 2024. Ms X says this was because Mr Y understood agreeing to the reduction would result in less charges when this was not actually the case.
15. The Council also contacted Mr Y’s mother, Mrs Z before it made changes to the care package. Mrs Z did not attend the care and support plan review meeting, but the Council seeks and considers her views where appropriate while recognising Mr Y has capacity to make decisions about his care and support. The Council considers it took reasonable and proportionate steps to ensure Mr Y was supported, involved and able to express his wishes and needs. It appropriately considered his circumstances during the review process and subsequent care planning.
16. The Council notified the day centre of the change in Mr Y’s attendance and amended Mr Y’s care and support plan. The day centre reported Mr Y’s attendance dropped during April and May with concerns about his low mood and mental health. Ms X raised a safeguarding concern with the Council. The Council considered the matter but decided it did not warrant a safeguarding enquiry as the day centre had carried out an internal safeguarding, notified Mr Y’s GP and the social worker stayed in contact with Mr Y.
17. The Council carried out a financial assessment on Mr Y in June 2024 and told Mr Y he was not required to contribute toward his care costs from April 2023.
18. Ms X complained to the Council in June 2024. Ms X’s concerns included:
• The reduction in Mr Y’s day centre attendance as she felt Mr Y was unable to understand the consequences of his decision to reduce his attendance to once a week. She felt he had made the decision based on the understanding his community care costs would be reduced.
• Mr Y’s outstanding community care costs and impact of the debt on him.
• The Council failed to respond to a safeguarding concern the day centre had raised in 2023.
19. The Council responded to the complaint. It explained there had been a review meeting in February 2024 and Mr Y later decided to reduce attendance to one day a week. The Council said there was a presumption Mr Y had capacity to make such a decision unless proven otherwise. So, it would arrange for a mental capacity assessment on Mr Y about this, his care and support needs and managing his finances. If Mr Y was found to lack capacity the Council would arrange an advocate to support him and make a referral to the Court of Protection to see if an appointeeship or a deputyship order was needed in his best interests.
20. The Council said Mr Y had been assessed as not needing to contribute from 2023, so the amount owing had not increased. But he had outstanding community care costs accrued before 2023.
21. The Council completed another financial assessment in July 2024. This resulted in a change to Mr Y’s charges as he was assessed as now needing to contribute from April 2023. The Council attempted to contact Mr Y to discuss the financial assessment without success. The Council contacted both Ms X and Mrs Z and explained the financial assessment process, client contribution and backdating. Ms X and Mrs Z were advised to review the details in the assessment letter when it arrived and to check the details. If they believed it was incorrect and Mr Y should be allowed more disability related expenditure, then they needed to provide supporting evidence to the Council.
22. In August 2024 Ms X told the Council she was unhappy with the response to her complaint and asked to go to stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure.
23. The Council carried out a mental capacity assessment on Mr Y in August 2024 which found he had capacity to make his decisions about his care and support needs as well as his finances. So, in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2025 the Council confirmed it supported Mr Y to make his own decisions and his views were given appropriate weight
24. Ms X contacted the Council in October 2024 as it had not responded to her request to go to stage 2. Ms X said her concern was not whether Mr Y lacked capacity but whether the Council could work effectively with individuals who had an ABI causing cognitive and communications challenges. Ms X said the Council had caused Mr Y distress by carrying out the mental capacity assessment when it was noted in Mr Y’s care plan he had cognitive impairments. Ms X also referred to Council recently telling Mr Y he now had to pay a monthly charge causing more distress as he had been told his community care charges had been reduced to £0.00. Ms X said the Council had not considered the request to reinstate Mr Y’s second day at the day centre and the impact of dropping a day on him.
25. The Council apologised to Ms X for the delay in responding. It explained that as there was an alternative appeal process (about the care charges) it was unable to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The Council advised Ms X to complain to us.
26. The Council says it has not ruled out increasing Mr Y’s attendance at the day centre in the future. But this would be based on consideration of Mr Y’s current needs, willingness and ability to attend consistently and whether this would support his identified outcomes effectively. It confirms such considerations would be based on care and support needs and wellbeing, not the costs. Ms X maintains Mr Y was told less charges would be incurred if he reduced his attendance to one day per week.
27. The Council confirms it has applied all relevant income disregards and disability related expenditure as part of the financial assessment. It is however willing to review the assessment if Ms X has any evidence of further expenses incurred by Mr Y.

My assessment

28. The documents provided show that the 2024 care and support plan review of Mr Y’s attendance at the day centre confirmed it would remain at two days a week. However, Mr Y continued to attend for one day a week. As a result, the Council reviewed whether the placement remained appropriate. It has confirmed its decision was on the grounds of Mr Y’s attendance and not on costs as Mr Y had been assessed as paying a weekly charge which was not dependent on how many days he attended. The social worker spoke to Mr Y who agreed to drop his attendance to one day a week. The social worker also spoke to Mrs Z about the reduction in days. The Council was satisfied Mr Y had capacity to make the decision about his care and support needs.
29. The Council’s documents including the care and support plan and review documents show it was aware of Mr Y’s ABI. The Council confirms it made reasonable adjustments for Mr Y and communicated with him accordingly. This has also informed the Council’s decisions about his care and support. The evidence provided show the Council has taken account of Mr Y’s views and also those who support him including Mrs Z. There is therefore no evidence of fault by Council when discussing his attendance at the day centre. It ensured Mr Y was supported, involved and able to express his wishes. The Council will review Mr Y’s attendance in the future to increase the days if required. But says it will depend on Mr Y’s needs, willingness and ability to attend consistently.
30. The Council did consider the safeguarding concerns raised by Ms X in March 2024. But did not consider these met the threshold for a safeguarding enquiry. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make.
31. Ms X contacted the Council in August 2024 to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure. Ms X chased the Council for a response in October 2024 as she had not received a reply. It was fault for the Council to take two months to respond to Ms X’s contact in August 2024. We would normally expect a Council to respond to communications within 20 working days or sooner depending on the type of contact and request. The Council apologised for the delay in October 2024 and explained to Ms X how to pursue her concerns further. This is appropriate action for it to take and remedies any injustice caused to Ms X and Mr Y in waiting for a response. There are no grounds for us to pursue this part of the complaint any further as the Council has taken appropriate action.
32. Ms X and Mr Y have been advised to go back to the Council about the more recent financial assessment if they consider there are any incorrect charges or evidence of any further disability related expenditure that can be considered. The Council would be willing to reassess Mr Y’s financial situation. This is action Ms X and Mr Y should take regarding Mr Y’s more recent financial charges. It is then open to them to complain to us again once they have completed a financial review if needed and Council’s complaints procedure.

Back to top

Decision

33. I find fault no causing injustice as the Council has taken appropriate action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman