Summary: The complaint is about the care commissioned by the Council to meet Mr B’s social care needs. There was fault by the Council in the time taken to commission care when one service provision ended and fault in the level of care provided by two care agencies acting on behalf of the Council. The Council will apologise to Mr B and make a payment to him.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the care agencies provided by the Council to meet his adult social care needs did not provide care for the contracted hours. He further complains about how the Council has worked out his assessed contribution and that he should not have to pay towards the cost of the care that was not provided.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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

5. I considered the complaint and documents provided by Mr B and spoke to him. I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. I sent a draft of this statement to Mr B and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of what happened

6. Mr B has various mental and physical health issues. Over 2018 he was receiving support of 16.5 hours a week to assist him managing his daily life and to prompt showering and medication, to support accessing the community and to assist with finances and de-escalating any crises. A new care agency, West Country Enabling Group, took over at the beginning of October. In November 2018 Mr B complained to the Council about the support he was receiving and the agency said it would need two carers to visit Mr B because of his challenging behaviour. The Council would not agree to two carers so the care provision stopped at the end of October.
7. The Council assessed Mr B’s care needs over December 2018 through January 2019. It concluded Mr B could manage most aspects of day to day life for himself but did still need support with everyday challenges which he found difficult to manage. The Council considered this could be best provided by a personal assistant for six hours a week.
8. A new agency, Devon Enabling Services, were contracted to provide the service from 11 February. Mr B complained to the Ombudsman in April about the care he was receiving and the fees he had been charged. We referred the complaint back to the Council to consider.
9. The Council responded to his complaint in May and as part of that agreed to carry out a further assessment. This confirmed that personal assistant support of six hours a week was the appropriate provision for Mr B but a different care provider was identified. They started in early July and Mr B is happy with the support provided.

Analysis

Provision of care

10. The care Mr B has been identified as needing has altered. It was 16.5 hours a week with a formal and regular package of care but is now six hours a week from a personal assistant which is more flexible. That current care is meeting Mr B’s needs.
11. The first issue here was the gap in care provision between the end of October 2018 when West Country Enabling Group ended and February 2019 when Devon Enabling Services started. The end of the first package was because of a breakdown in relations between Mr B and the carer provider. This was an unplanned ending of care and the Council did respond and had seen Mr B within two weeks. But care was not place for over three months which is unacceptable. I consider the Council should have ensured care was in place within two weeks of the end of the previous support package. This means that Mr B has missed support for 12 weeks.

The care provided

12. Mr B has complained that both the care agencies involved did not provide the care they were contracted to do. In the case of West Country Enabling Group that was 16.5 hours a week. That agency said that they could not support Mr B with only one carer because of his behaviour towards staff. Mr B said that Devon Enabling Services was only providing half of the contracted six hours a week. Neither carer provided has responded to requests from the Council to comment on the complaint.
13. In the absence of any response from the care providers I conclude, on the balance of probabilities, there were failings in the care provided to Mr B.

Mr B’s financial contribution

14. The Council has provided information to show how it has calculated Mr B’s financial contribution towards his care. There is no fault by the Council in how it has done this.

Agreed action

15. Where there has been fault we look to the Council to provide some remedy for the complainant. Here I consider there was a failure to ensure care was put in place quickly enough when the West Country Enabling stopped providing care. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr B for this period without any support the Council should pay him £600. This equals Mr B’s liability for the period between 1 October 2018 and June 2019. However there is a liability of just over £1100 from June 2017 to October 2018. Mr B has not complained about the care during that period and there is nothing to suggest the charges are wrong. I cannot, therefore, make any recommendations about the liability from that period.
16. Both West Country Enabling and Devon Enabling did not provide the level of care they should. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although I found fault with the service of the care provider, I have made recommendations to the Council. The Council should pay Mr B £600 for the period when the care he was receiving was not at the level it should have been. This recognises that Mr B was receiving some support but not all he should.
17. The Council should, within one month of the final decision, pay Mr B £1200 and apologise to him for the failings identified.

Back to top

Final decision

18. There was fault by the Council in the time taken to commission care when one service provision ended and fault in the level of care provided by two care agencies acting on behalf of the Council. The Council will apologise to Mr B and make a payment to him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman