Summary: The complaint is about the transfer of Ms A’s care when she moved from Hertfordshire to Kent. There was fault by both councils. Hertfordshire failed to review Ms A’s care and support plan. And Kent failed to complete a full assessment or care and support plan and failed to explain the difference in its personal budget. Both councils actions caused Ms A avoidable distress. Each council will apologise and pay her £150.

The complaint

1. Ms A complains about Kent County Council (Kent) and Hertfordshire County Council (Hertfordshire). She says Hertfordshire:
1. Stopped her direct payment between September and December 2017 because of errors in a financial assessment resulting in her having to give notice to her care provider and having to use her own money to pay for care
2. Did not identify a care agency for her when she said she could not find a provider
3. Stopped her direct payment at the beginning of April, before Kent had taken over funding responsibility
4. Failed to liaise with Kent.
2. Ms A complains Kent:
1. failed to liaise with Hertfordshire about which authority was responsible for her care/support
2. refused to provide adequate support for her.

3. Ms A says this resulted in avoidable stress. And, because the direct payment ran out she had to end her contract with one agency and also had to pay for her care from her own money to prevent the direct payment account becoming overdrawn. She says she and her child had to move to Kent to get support from her mother because of Hertfordshire’s failings.
4. Ms A wants an apology and to receive social care funding in Kent. She does not want the same thing to happen to other people in her situation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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

7. I considered:
• Ms A’s complaint and supporting documents
• The Council’s responses to her complaint and other complaint correspondence
• Documents from both councils as described below
• The parties comments on a draft of this statement

Back to top

What I found

8. A council must carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the outcomes they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where appropriate their carer or any other person they might want involved. (Care Act 2014, section 9)
9. The Care Act spells out the duty to meet eligible needs (needs which meet the eligibility criteria). (Care Act 2014, section 18)
10. An adult’s needs meet the eligibility criteria if they arise from or are related to a physical or mental impairment or illness (which includes a brain injury) and as a result the adult cannot achieve two or more of the following outcomes and as a result there is or is likely to be a significant impact on well-being:
• Managing and maintaining nutrition
• Maintaining personal hygiene
• Managing toilet needs
• Being appropriately clothed
• Making use of the home safely
• Maintaining a habitable home environment
• Accessing work, training, education
• Making use of facilities or services in the community
• Carrying out caring responsibilities.

(Care and Support (Eligibility Criteria) Regulations 2014)

11. If a council decides a person is eligible for care, it should prepare a care and support plan which specifies the needs identified in the assessment, says whether and to what extent the needs meet the eligibility criteria and specifies the needs the council is going to meet and how this will be done. The council should give a copy of the care and support plan to the person. (Care Act 2014, sections 24 and 25)
12. The care and support plan must set out a personal budget. A personal budget is a statement which specifies the cost to the local authority of meeting eligible needs. (Care Act 2014, section 26)
13. A person with eligible care needs can have a council arrange their care. Or, if they wish, they can arrange their own care using a payment the council gives them (‘direct payment’). (Care Act 2014, section 31)
14. A council must keep a care and support plan and personal budget under review, generally and on a reasonable request from the person to whom the plan relates. A council can revise a care and support plan if circumstances have changed in a way that affects the plan, and if doing so, must involve the person. The council must take reasonable steps to reach agreement with the adult concerned. (Care Act 2014, sections 27 and 28)
15. If a person receiving care and support from one council (the first council) tells another council (the second council) that they intend to move, the second council must, if it is satisfied the person’s intention is genuine:
• Provide the adult with such information as is appropriate
• Carry out a needs assessment, having regard to the care and support plan from the first council. (Care Act 2014, section 37(1), (4), (6), (7))
16. The first council must provide the second with a copy of the care and support plan, the personal budget and the most recent assessment of need and other information on request and keep in touch with the second council about progress. And it must keep the adult informed about its contact with the second council and must involve the adult in that contact. (Care Act 2014, section 37(5))
17. Where there is a change in the personal budget, the second council must explain the difference in writing. (Care Act 2014, section 37)
18. If an adult receiving care and support moves to a different area and the second council has not yet carried out an assessment, the second council is required to meet the needs of the adult until it has carried out its own assessment. If the person is still ‘ordinarily resident’ in the first council, the second council may recover costs of meeting the person’s needs. (Care Act 2014, section 38)
19. If two councils cannot agree about where a person is ordinarily resident, then they must follow the procedure set out in regulations and Care and Support Statutory Guidance. There is an appeal to the Secretary of State if agreement cannot be reached. The Ombudsman expects councils to follow that procedure if they cannot agree on a person’s ordinary residence.
20. Councils may charge for care services. If they do, they should carry out an assessment of what the person can afford to pay, using the rules set out in regulations and Care and Support Statutory Guidance (CSSG).
21. CSSG says a person should be the full cost of their care if they have capital over £23,500, including property. If a person lives in a care home, the value of their property must be disregarded if their partner or former partner still lives in it. (Annex B, paragraph 34.) If a person does not live in a care home, the council can use discretion to apply a property disregard. It needs to balance this discretion with ensuring a person’s assets are not maintained at the public expense (Annex B para 42)

What happened

22. Ms A has physical and mental health problems and received a weekly direct payment of £270 from Hertfordshire. Ms A’s care was delivered partly by a care agency and partly by a personal assistant she employed. Ms A had a care and support plan which set out the agreed funding to meet her needs, including:
• Personal care in the mornings, and evenings which Ms A secured through agencies
• Meal preparation twice a week using agencies
• Support from a personal assistant to help Ms A with parenting. Ms A employed the personal assistant using her direct payment.
23. Ms A and her child moved out of the house she owned with her husband into a rented bungalow in July 2017. She completed a financial assessment form Hertfordshire sent her to assess her charge for care. Hertfordshire financially assessed Ms A as a full-cost payer due to her share in the property which her husband was still living in. This meant her direct payment stopped and she had to pay for all her care.
24. On 3 November, Ms A phoned Hertfordshire’s contact centre saying her direct payment had stopped. She said this was because she had split up with her partner and moved into a rented council property and was the co-owner of a house with her ex-partner. She asked for a review because the assets were still in her property and she could not afford to pay for all her care and so had reduced her personal assistant’s hours. The team manager noted the Council could consider a deferred payment agreement (this is where a council does not charge a person for care until they sell their property) and her case was to be prioritised for a review.
25. On 9 November Ms A phoned Hertfordshire saying she had had a fall and needed an assessment. On 14 November, Ms A’s case was allocated to a case worker. Ms A’s community psychiatric nurse (CPN) phoned the caseworker saying Ms A had taken an overdose and was not coping well due to the direct payment stopping. Ms A was not admitted to hospital after the overdose. She was referred to a short-term care team who visited her over the weekend.
26. On 20 November, the Hertfordshire case worker and CPN visited Ms A and discussed her finances. The case worker contacted the finance team after the visit and the finance team said Ms A’s marital home could be disregarded in the financial assessment. The caseworker noted she had discussed Ms A’s direct payment with her at the visit and told Ms A she still had funds with which she could organise care with her personal assistant.
27. The Hertfordshire caseworker spoke to Ms A and said the direct payment would be reinstated immediately so she could arrange care with her personal assistants. The caseworker noted Ms A had asked her for details of an agency, but that particular agency did not take on care in the area Ms A lived. Ms A said her ex-partner had threatened to snatch their daughter and she was contacting the police about that. The records indicate a social worker from Hertfordshire’s children’s services was involved with Ms A’s daughter and was completing an assessment for the daughter. Both parents had been advised to seek legal advice about the daughter’s care arrangements.
28. Hertfordshire carried out a financial assessment and wrote to Ms A with her charge and an explanation of how it had calculated this based on her income. The letter explained the Council had disregarded the value of Ms A’s property when calculating the charge. The finance team wrote again a few days later with a lower charge due to an error in the previous letter.
29. On 24 November Ms A and the Hertfordshire caseworker spoke on the phone. Ms A was unhappy about her assessed care charge. This had risen due to a change in her income since the previous financial assessment. Ms A asked the case worker to arrange a package of care for her. The case worker refused and said Ms A could make arrangements with the personal assistant she still employed. The caseworker noted she would speak to Ms A the following week, once the direct payment had been reinstated and she would ask Ms A if she wanted the Council to commission her care.
30. Ms A told us she went to Kent on 24 November, with her daughter. She stayed with her mother initially and later rented a room in a house.
31. On 28 November, an officer from Kent adult care services called the Hertfordshire caseworker saying Ms A’s daughter was staying in Kent and that Ms A wanted to move to Kent. The Hertfordshire caseworker and Ms A spoke the following day. The caseworker advised Ms A her care charge had reduced and gave Ms A details of two agencies which might be able to provide care.
32. At the start of December, Hertfordshire’s deputy team manager agreed a ‘split’ care package for Ms A. This means the Council would commission some of the care using a care agency and Ms A would arrange and pay for the remaining care using a direct payment.
33. Hertfordshire’s commissioning team tried to find care agencies to take on Ms A’s care package. An officer noted she had tried several agencies on 4 and 8 December but they did not have vacancies. The caseworker spoke to Ms A to say there had been no success finding an agency.
34. Ms A left the caseworker a message on 21 December saying she was upset Hertfordshire had not managed to find an agency and she was being forced to move to Kent as a result of having no care.
35. The team manager noted Hertfordshire would commission an agency that did not have a main contract. The Council told me it needed to approach other agencies without a main contract because of the lack of agencies taking on new care packages before Christmas. The commissioning team noted they had been trying agencies regularly and a list of cases needing care (including Ms A’s) was being sent out to all agencies three times a week with no success.
36. On 24 December, Ms A emailed Kent’s contact centre email saying she had moved in with her mother and was trying to find carers in the area. She said she needed help to find care.
37. Ms A emailed the Hertfordshire caseworker at the end of December to say she was staying with her mother in Kent, she had applied for housing in Kent but been refused and had looked at private properties to rent without success. Ms A said she was going to stay in a hotel in Kent from the beginning of January. She also said she was going to court against her ex-partner about custody of their daughter and finances.
38. On 3 January 2018, Ms A’s CPN and Ms A’s daughter’s social worker emailed the caseworker to say Ms A was living in Kent. Ms A said she was staying in a hotel in Kent until Hertfordshire sorted out her care.
39. On 9 January, the Hertfordshire caseworker phoned an agency that was not on the Council’s approved list of care providers. The agency confirmed it could provide care for Ms A.
40. On 12 January, the Hertfordshire caseworker emailed Ms A with details of the agency. Ms A had to arrange care with the agency herself using her direct payment because the agency was not on the Council’s contracted provider list. On 22 January, the caseworker emailed Ms A to see if she had arranged care with the agency.
41. 29 January, Ms A emailed the Hertfordshire caseworker to say she had found a room to rent and that she was going to move to Kent permanently. Ms A said the family she lived with were cooking meals for her and she had borrowed bathing equipment. She asked how to transfer her care to Kent and said she wanted to advertise for a personal assistant in Kent. The Hertfordshire caseworker gave Ms A details of a national organisation which could support her to find a personal assistant. The following day, Ms A emailed the caseworker to say she had tried to contact Kent to transfer her care, but they said she had to contact Hertfordshire to do this. The Hertfordshire caseworker spoke to an officer in Kent who said they would send referral papers for Kent to carry out an assessment.
42. On 30 January Ms A’s GP referred her to Kent for a social care assessment. Ms A’s Hertfordshire caseworker also referred her to Kent and emailed a copy of Ms A’s care and support plan. The following day Ms A also contacted Kent asking for an assessment.
43. On 8 February, Ms A emailed the Hertfordshire caseworker saying she had been forced to move to Kent because of Hertfordshire stopping her direct payment and there being no care agencies available in Hertfordshire. The caseworker replied saying the direct payment had restarted and Ms A could arrange care in Hertfordshire with the agency identified. The Hertfordshire caseworker said she had asked Kent to assess Ms A as she was ordinarily resident in Kent and Hertfordshire would continue with the direct payment until Kent completed a social care assessment. Ms A said she was interviewing two candidates that week to provide her with care in Kent. Ms A also said she had spoken to Kent and was waiting for an assessment. The caseworker spoke to an officer in Kent and emailed Kent a copy of Ms A’s care and support plan.
44. On 16 February, Ms A emailed a direct payments officer in Kent asking for help finding a personal assistant. The direct payments officer replied saying he could help once the adult social care team had referred her. Ms A said she already had a direct payment and needed advice on how to employ a candidate she had found.
45. On 20 and 22 February, the Hertfordshire case worker emailed Ms A to say she could return to her bungalow in Hertfordshire and receive care from the agency, using her direct payment. Ms A replied saying she could not return to Hertfordshire despite having no permanent housing in Kent because she needed her family’s support, her daughter was settled in a new school and her mental health support was in Kent. Ms A also said it was not safe for her and her daughter to return because of her ex-partner and she had a court order saying she and her daughter had to stay in Kent
46. The Hertfordshire case worker asked Ms A for a copy of the court order. Ms A did not reply so the caseworker emailed Ms A on 27 February asking if Kent had assessed her. She said if Ms A intended to stay in Kent, then Kent would need to assess her. Ms A replied saying she had not heard anything from Kent. She said Kent would not help her find a personal assistant until she had been assessed and meantime, her landlady was providing care.
47. On 1 March, the Hertfordshire caseworker noted in an email that Ms A was on Kent’s waiting list for an assessment and her housing benefit in Hertfordshire had stopped as she had told the housing benefit adviser she did not intend to return.
48. On 13 March Ms A’s case was allocated to a Kent case manager who carried out an assessment on 16 March. She noted Ms A was receiving a direct payment from Hertfordshire for 17 hours per week. The assessment was an initial contact and information assessment. The form described Ms A’s circumstances and contained emails between Kent and Hertfordshire officers but it said nothing about Ms A’s eligible care and support needs.
49. The Kent case manager discussed Ms A’s case with her manager after the visit. The manager advised Hertfordshire should continue to fund the direct payment as a decision about permanent residence could be made until after the court case as Ms A would then have to decide whether to give up her Hertfordshire tenancy.
50. The Kent case manager completed a cost setting tool which gave Ms A a personal budget of £75 a week, for seven hours a week of care. This was to be paid to Ms A through a direct payment.
51. The Hertfordshire caseworker emailed the Kent case manager asking if an assessment had taken place. Ms A also emailed both councils saying her care had broken down and she had not got suitable housing in the same location as her care and support. She asked both councils to work together to resolve the issue. Ms A said she could not make long term plans until the final court case in May where the court would decide which parent her daughter would live with. She said she was stuck between a rock and a hard place.
52. On 18 March, Ms A emailed Hertfordshire about its initial response to her complaint. She said she had to use £400 of her own money to pay for her care so the direct payment account did not go overdrawn. She said she could only afford nine hours of care during the period the direct payment stopped.
53. On 21 March, there was an email exchange between the Hertfordshire caseworker and the Kent case manager. Kent’s view was Ms A was not ordinarily resident in Kent as she may return to Hertfordshire after the court case. The Hertfordshire case worker said Ms A’s care was Kent’s responsibility and Hertfordshire was going to stop the direct payment at the end of March. The Hertfordshire caseworker emailed Ms A saying her direct payment was ending. Ms A replied saying she had not had a decision from Kent about whether it would give her a direct payment. She asked her caseworker to liaise with Kent and reconsider. She said her landlady was providing her with care. The caseworker replied saying Hertfordshire would stop the direct payment on 3 April to allow Kent time to complete a care and support plan.
54. On 27 March, there was a further email exchange between Kent and Hertfordshire with each suggesting Ms A was ordinarily resident in the other area. Hertfordshire ended the direct payment and closed Ms A’s case on 3 April. Hertfordshire’s final payment allowed funding to the end of April.
55. On 4 April, the Kent case manager referred Ms A to the direct payments team for help with employing a personal assistant.
56. On 20 April Ms A phoned the Kent case manager to ask when Kent would be taking over her care funding. Ms A said she had employed a personal assistant for seven hours a week and had some funds in her direct payment account which would not last long. The case manager said the Council would not look at funding until after the court hearing. Ms A said she could not understand why Kent would not take over as all her other services (GP, mental health, daughter’s school) were in Kent.
57. On 3 May an internal email between officers in Kent said Ms A was putting in a complaint. She said she was not returning to Hertfordshire and should be accepted as a resident in Kent as she had been living there since November.
58. On 9 May, the Kent Case manager visited Ms A to ‘review her care and support needs’. The case manager noted Ms A had needs around personal care, mobility and toileting.
59. On 14 May, the Kent case manager referred Ms A to the finance team for a financial assessment. The finance officer tried to complete an assessment by phone but could not as Ms A was distressed.
60. On 30 May, the Kent direct payments support officer emailed Ms A offering to help her with the financial assessment form. Ms A said she was selling her house but did not yet have the funds from the sale.
61. On 6 June, the direct payments support officer emailed the case manager saying Ms A had already employed a personal assistant and she was concerned the annual cost was more than Ms A’s personal budget.
62. On 16 July, Kent’s finance team noted Ms A had sent in financial evidence and her charge based on her income was more than the proposed direct payment. The finance team wrote to Ms A explaining she would not get any money because the charge (£96) was more than the direct payment (£75). Ms A emailed the case manager saying the financial assessment was incorrect as she had a mobility care and did not receive disability benefits for this so they could not be included in the calculation. (This was not the case: the Council’s calculation showed it had disregarded Ms A’s mobility benefit.)
63. On 9 August, Ms A asked Kent’s case manager to reassess her as she was moving into her own flat. Ms A said she was employing a personal assistant for seven hours a week.
64. On 15 August, Ms A told the case manager her daughter had moved back to her father’s in Hertfordshire and she had contact with the daughter for two hours twice a week.
65. On 4 September, Ms A emailed the case manager saying she was struggling to pay her personal assistant and she could not prepare hot meals. The team manager asked the case manager to review Ms A.
66. On 25 September, an occupational therapist assessed Ms A and agreed a bath lift. The OT said there was no need for a carer to wash Ms A’s hair and no need for help with cooking as Ms A had a perching stool and counter top oven. The OT ordered a bed lever so Ms A could transfer in and out of bed.
67. The Council carried out a further financial assessment in October 2018. The outcome was an increase in Ms A’s care charge and so she still did not qualify for funding as her charge was more than the direct payment. The letter confirmed the value of Ms A’s property had been disregarded.
68. Ms A complained to both councils. Neither council upheld Ms A’s complaint.

Comments from Hertfordshire

69. Hertfordshire told me:
• Ms A’s direct payment was reinstated and back dated. It agreed she had paid in £400 of her own money into the direct payment account, but she had enough funds to pay for her care and so there was no need for Ms A to use her own money.
• Its procedure when finding a care agency was to ask the main contracted provider for the area and then to contact other providers if the main provider cannot take on the care package. It makes repeated requests to providers by email and phone. The issue in this case was the Christmas break, when many agencies had staff asking for leave and so tended to refuse new work.

Comments from Kent

70. Kent told me:
• The case manager completed an assessment in March. At that time Ms A’s residence was unclear and the outcome of the court case would have an impact on where she would reside.
• Ms A was referred to the direct payments team at the start of April and received support to complete paperwork for recruiting a personal assistant.
• On 9 May, Kent agreed to take on funding at seven hours per week from 1 May. The Council was now willing to take on funding responsibility from 3 April.
• A referral for a financial assessment was made on 14 May. Ms A was not eligible four funding as her care charge was higher than the direct payment.

Was there fault and if so did this cause injustice?

Hertfordshire stopped the direct payment between September and December 2017 because of errors in a financial assessment resulting in Ms A having to give notice to her care provider and having to use her own money to pay for care

71. Hertfordshire was entitled to include Ms A’s share in her property in the financial assessment. Ms A asked for a review when Hertfordshire advised her she was not eligible for funding and in response, Hertfordshire used discretion to disregard the value of the property for a year. Hertfordshire acted in line with Annex B of Care and Support Statutory Guidance and so there was no fault.
72. Ms A transferred some of her own money into the direct payment account in November 2017. But, had she not done this, there would still have been money in the account to pay for her personal assistant until the direct payment restarted and was backdated. I do not consider Ms A had any injustice even if I had found any fault by Hertfordshire.

Hertfordshire did not identify a care agency for Ms A when she said she could not find a care provider.

73. Section 27 of the Care Act 2014 required Hertfordshire to keep Ms A’s care and support plan under review and to revise it where circumstances changed in a way that affected the plan. This was to ensure the plan remained up to date. Ms A asked for a review, she had recently taken an overdose, was concerned about her estranged husband’s threats and had contacted her GP because of a lack of care. And she told the caseworker she could not find an agency with capacity to take on her care. I consider these factors meant circumstances had changed in a way which affected the care and support plan. I consider Hertfordshire should have carried out a review of the care and support plan to see whether any revisions to it were needed. The review should have taken place in November 2017 before Ms A went to Kent.
74. I cannot say what the outcome of the review would have been or whether it would have meant Ms A made a different decision about relocating to Kent. I note she gave different reasons for moving over time including the threat from her husband to her daughter and the need for support from the wider family who lived in Kent. Having taken these factors into account, I consider Hertfordshire’s failure to review the care and support plan in November caused avoidable distress at a time when Ms A was already under pressure. I have sympathy with Ms A’s position and in particular with her reluctance to move back to Hertfordshire between November and January because there was no care agency in Hertfordshire available to support her with part of her care that her personal assistant could not do and she had not yet had an assessment in Kent.
75. There was fault in Hertfordshire’s failure to review Mrs A’s care and support plan in November and I consider this caused Ms A avoidable distress. I do not consider this meant Ms A had to move to Kent permanently. This is because Hertfordshire identified an agency with capacity in January. It told Ms A about this and so she could have returned to Hertfordshire with a care package in January had she wished to. I consider there was more than one factor in Ms A’s decision-making and it was not just the lack of care that led her to go to Kent in the first place or to remain in Kent.

Hertfordshire stopped the direct payment at the beginning of April, before Kent had taken over funding responsibility

76. Kent became aware Ms A was in its area at the end of December. In December, Ms A was saying she was staying with family until Hertfordshire sorted out her care package. Her statements to officers in December and January did not indicate a genuine intention to move. At the end of February, Ms A was saying to both councils that she would not return to Hertfordshire, she needed family support, had settled her daughter in a new school and she had NHS mental health services in Kent. This strongly indicates Ms A had a genuine intention to move to Kent (or remain in Kent). In line with the requirements of section 37 of the Care Act 2014, Kent was therefore required to provide Ms A with appropriate information and assess her social care needs, having regard to Hertfordshire’s care and support plan.
77. Kent’s records indicate it carried out a contact assessment in March. I do not consider that assessment was compliant with the requirements of the Care Act 2014 though. It did not contain an analysis of Ms A’s needs and whether any of those needs met the eligibility criteria set out in paragraph 10. Kent’s failure to carry out an assessment in line with the Care Act was fault. Additionally, Kent did not draw up a care and support plan, although the internal cost setting tool that the case manager completed indicated that Ms A was eligible for care and support and that Kent considered a personal budget of seven hours of care was sufficient to meet her eligible care and support needs. The failure to complete a care and support plan was not in line with sections 24 and 25 of the Care Act 2014 and was fault.
78. Ms A had a personal budget in Hertfordshire which allowed her to buy 16 hours of care. Kent’s personal budget allowed for 7 hours. As this was a reduction, Kent was required under section 37 of the Care Act 2014 to explain the difference in writing to Ms A. Its failure to do so was fault and caused Ms A uncertainty and avoidable distress.
79. Councils are only required to meet the needs of those who are ordinarily resident in their area. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide where a person is ordinarily resident. There is a dispute process for councils to follow and an appeal to the Secretary of State for Health if the dispute cannot be resolved. In response to my enquiries, Kent said it accepted funding responsibility from 1 May, but was now willing to take on responsibility from 3 April. This indicates Kent accepts Ms A became ordinarily resident in Kent at the start of April. I do not consider there was fault by Hertfordshire in stopping the direct payment when it did. I consider Kent was at fault in not accepting responsibility when Hertfordshire said it was going to stop the direct payment. This is because section 38 of the Care Act 2014 says the second council must meet the needs of the person who has moved until it has completed an assessment.

Hertfordshire and Kent failed to liaise with each other about which council was responsible for funding

80. The records show the Hertfordshire case worker contacted Kent and made a referral for an assessment in January once it was clear Ms A was not returning to Hertfordshire. I am satisfied there was regular liaison between both councils in line with section 37(5) of the Care Act 2014.

Kent refused to provide adequate support for her

81. As set out in paragraph 77, I do not consider Kent’s social care assessment for Ms A was in line with the requirements of Care Act 2014. There was also a failure to complete a care and support plan and a failure to explain the reason for the reduction in Ms A’s personal budget. These were all faults causing confusion and avoidable distress.
82. Kent’s financial assessment concluded Ms A was not entitled to funding because her assessed charge was greater than her personal budget. There was no fault in this as councils are entitled to charge people for care.
83. I note Ms A’s circumstances have changed in that she no longer has parenting responsibilities. Kent reviewed Ms A’s case following the change in circumstances and also reviewed her charge. It considered a personal budget of seven hours was sufficient to meet Ms A’s needs, and, as her care charge had increased due to her change in circumstances, she was still not entitled to funding as her care charge exceeded her direct payment.

Back to top

Agreed action

84. My findings are that Hertfordshire failed to review Ms A’s care and support plan in November 2017 causing her avoidable distress. To remedy the injustice, it will apologise and pay her £150.
85. Kent failed to carry out a Care Act compliant assessment or draw up a care and support plan. And it failed to explain the difference in Ms A’s personal budget. This also caused Ms A avoidable distress. To remedy the injustice, it will also apologise and pay her £150. The Councils should complete these actions within one month of this statement.
86. Ms A wants to receive funding for her care. There are no grounds for me to recommend this because Kent is entitled to charge Ms A for care and as her assessed charge exceeds her care funding, she is not entitled to a direct payment.

Back to top

Final decision

87. The complaint is about the transfer of Ms A’s care when she moved from Hertfordshire to Kent. There was fault by both councils. Hertfordshire failed to review Ms A’s care and support plan. And Kent failed to complete a full assessment or care and support plan and failed to explain the difference in its personal budget. Both councils actions caused Ms A avoidable distress. Each council will apologise and pay her £150.
88. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman