Summary: Mr X complains Isle of Wight Council (IWC) failed to meet his mother’s needs properly or his needs as her carer, and West Sussex County Council (WSCC) failed to support his mother properly after June 2018 and ignored his request to stop paying her direct payments to him. WSCC has not failed to support his mother. It failed to take any action in response to Mr X’s request to stop making payments, but this did not cause injustice to him or his mother. IWC did not always implement the mother’s care and support plan, which caused injustice to Mr X. It needs to apologise and pay financial redress.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains:
• IWC failed to meet his mother’s needs properly, or his needs as her carer, from June 2018 until they moved off the island 2019; and
• WSCC failed to support his mother properly after June 2018 and ignored his request to stop paying her direct payments to him.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated the actions of WSCC and IWC between June 2018 and April 2019.

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 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, sections 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
5. 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)
6. Before investigating a complaint we must normally be satisfied a council has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• discussed the complaint with Mr X;
• considered the comments and documents IWC and WSCC have provided in response to my enquiries; and
• shared a draft of this statement with Mr X, IWC and WSCC, and invited comments for me to consider before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. There has been a significant amount of contact between Mr X and both WSCC and IWC, reflected in their respective case notes. There is too much to list in this statement. I refer to the key contents below, as well as to other relevant documents

What happened

9. Mr X and his mother, Mrs Y, lived in West Sussex until 2009, when they moved to the Isle of Wight. WSCC provided funding under its duty to provide after-care services for Mrs Y under the Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. This duty arose because Mrs Y had been detained under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act in 2007. WSCC paid her funding as a direct payment (£243 a week). It included funds to pay carers to provide personal care, weekly respite care, six weeks of annual respite care and £102 to Mr X for the care he provided each week.
10. Following a review of Mrs Y in March/April 2018, which also involved Mrs Y’s IWC Social Worker, WSCC reduced its Section 117 funding. This was because she appeared to need extra support for her mental health to prevent a readmission to hospital for no more than six weeks a year. As WSCC could not separate her physical and mental health needs, it agreed to fund six weeks (£1,451.26) of her annual personal budget of £12,093.88. It paid this as a direct payment from 30 June 2018 (£27.90 a week to be paid to Mr X for caring for his mother). WSCC made its decision on the basis IWC had accepted responsibility for meeting Mrs Y’s social care needs under the Care Act 2014.
11. Following a legal agreement, IWC started assessing Mrs Y’s needs in 2016, continued it in 2017 and completed the assessment between March to June 2018. The assessment says Mrs Y needed help achieving these outcomes:
• managing and maintaining nutrition
• maintaining personal hygiene
• managing toilet needs
• being appropriately clothed
• maintaining a habitable home environment
• making use of the home safely
• developing and maintaining family or other personal relationships
• making use of necessary facilities or services in the local community, including public transport and recreational facilities or services
12. IWC’s assessment says:
• with Mr X’s support Mrs Y’s mental health has stabilised;
• she can become agitated when Mr X is not there but can be left for short periods if well and calm;
• she needs regular support to complete activities of daily living (e.g. washing, dressing, meals, medication);
• ways of giving Mr X more breaks need to be found without this having an adverse effect on Mrs Y.
13. IWC said it would continue to pay the funds paid by WSCC until it had agreed its own independence plan (care and support plan) for Mrs Y. In an e-mail to WSCC, copied to IWC, on 18 June, Mr X said he had been paid £110 a week from his mother’s funding. He said this would have to remain if he was to continue as his mother’s full-time carer.
14. Mr X told IWC it needed to fund a 45-minute call each morning, 2 hours of carer support a week, £52.29 a week for respite and £110 for him as his mother’s full-time care. IWC told him it was commissioning a 45-minute call each morning and 2 hours of carer support. It said it was willing to recognise his support but he would have to register with HM Revenue and Customs, as it could not pay him without this. Mr X proposed employing himself as his mother’s Personal Assistant but said this could wait until they had agreed an independence plan.
15. In June Mr X completed a carer’s assessment. He identified the need for more respite from his caring role. On 24 July IWC wrote to Mr X saying he had eligible needs for support in:
• maintaining family and personal relationships;
• accessing work, training, volunteering or education; and
• making use of recreational activities.
16. IWC said it would include care and support for his mother so Mr X could have time away from home and his caring responsibilities.
17. On 28 June IWC noted Mr X could not be set up as a self-employed Personal Assistant, as he would not be working for anyone else. It e-mailed an agency for advice on setting up a contract for Mrs Y to employ her son to care for her.
18. On 1 July IWC told Mr X he could use any care agency to look after his mother when he went away, not just the one providing regular personal care for her.
19. IWC met Mr X and Mrs Y on 4 July to discuss draft care plans, including ways of employing him as his mother’s carer:
• registering as self-employed;
• employed by a care agency; or
• Mrs Y employing him as her carer.

Mr X said he would need to be paid enough to reflect the fact he would no longer be eligible for benefits (due to the different ways in which Section 117 funding and direct payments under the Care Act are treated). He and his mother’s Advocate confirmed they were satisfied with her assessment, following changes made by IWC.

20. As an interim measure, IWC agreed to fund:
• 14 hours of homecare/sitting/respite a week, from 25 June;
• 1 night sit per week, from 25 June;
• 2 hours a week to access the community, from 1 July;
• 45 minutes of personal care a day, from 1 July.
21. On 5 July Mr X told IWC he would need 32 hours of respite a week so he could visit friends/family on and off the island, as well as take part in other leisure activities. He said the Office of the Public Guardian had said his sister could sign a contract on behalf of his mother.
22. IWC’s records say:
• Mr X could not register as self-employed as he would only be working for one person, his mother;
• he would not agree to being employed by a care agency as he would have to be interviewed and complete reference checks but would not have the flexibility to arrange care as needed;
• his sister could sign a contract for their mother to employ him.
23. On 6 July IWC confirmed Mr X could arrange a sitting service with a care agency and it would pay for it.
24. On 19 July Mrs Y’s Advocate wrote to IWC to complain about the time taken to agree a care and support plan for her. This included events which I have not investigated (see paragraph 83 below). IWC apologised and said it had completed Mrs Y’s assessment, which it would reflect in her independence plan.
25. On 20 July IWC told Mr X it would not pay him as his mother’s carer and said this was in line with the Care and Support Statutory Guidance. Mr X said it was unrealistic to expect him to be there to meet his mother’s needs at night while he went out to work during the day. He said IWC’s proposal would put his mother at risk.
26. Mr X told WSCC he was no longer willing to manage his mother’s direct payment and asked it to stop paying the money. He asked it to pay the money to IWC. WSCC says it could not do this without a formal care plan review.
27. IWC told WSCC it would not be paying Mr X as his mother’s carer. It said it was likely to need a bit more for Mrs Y’s Section 117 aftercare than agreed by WSCC.
28. IWC arranged to meet Mr X on 31 July to discuss an independence plan for Mrs Y, which it sent to him on 25 July. IWC’s plan includes a weekly personal budget of £500.60 (paid as a direct payment) and says:
• Mr X and his sister will help their mother access the community;
• Mr X will help his mother manage her toilet needs but she may benefit from an occupational therapy assessment to identify aids or equipment which might help;
• Mr X would meet his mother’s need for help managing and maintaining nutrition, with carers meeting this need if he is away;
• it would provide £383.20 a week to pay a carer to be with Mrs Y for 13.25 hours plus one waking night sit a week, to give Mr X a break from his caring role;
• Mr X would meet Mrs Y’s need for help making use of the home safely, or a carer when he is away;
• it would pay £25 a week to employ someone to clean their home;
• it would pay £92.40 a week to pay a carer to help Mrs Y maintain personal hygiene for 45 minutes each morning;
• Mr X’s support is essential in ensuring the best stability for his mother’s mental health;
• there appears to be a link between Mr X going away for a night and Mrs Y’s low mood.
29. Mrs Y was not well enough to take part in the meeting on 31 July. However, she told IWC she did not want to live in a care home. IWC said it recognised Mr X as his mother’s unpaid family carer. It agreed to ask its Panel to reconsider whether there were exceptional circumstances to justify paying him as Mrs Y’s carer. Mr X raised concerns about his mother’s mental health. IWC said a referral by her GP would address this. Mr X said IWC needed to reassess his mother due to a decline in her condition and the need for someone with more mental health experience to assess her. IWC noted he had agreed the assessment. Mr X said he needed a new carer’s assessment, as the current one was based on him being his mother’s paid carer, but that was not the case. IWC agreed to refer Mrs Y for an Occupational Therapy assessment, via her GP, over toilet access, transfers and mobilising indoors/outdoors. Mr X said IWC needed to come up with a plan which would meet his mother’s needs while he went to work. IWC said in the short-term they needed to agree a plan which met both his mother’s needs and his needs as her carer. Mr X said a two-hour morning call (with carers delivering personal care, breakfast and medication, apart from insulin, which he would deliver) and 24-hour respite care (so he could go away for a day or two) could achieve this. Mr X agreed to manage Mrs Y’s personal budget via direct payments. Mr X said having lots of different carers was likely to unsettle his mother.
30. On 15 August, Mrs Y’s Solicitor complained to IWC about the failure to agree a care and support plan for Mrs Y and provided comments on the proposed plan. Mr X also wrote on 17 August.
31. On 21/22 August Mr X told IWC the respite was “kind of working” but his mother was more disorientated if he was away overnight than during the day. He said he wanted to have the flexibility to use the night hours as day hours. He asked for direct payments so he could manage his mother’s personal budget, rather than ask IWC about every change. IWC agreed to set up direct payments.
32. On 31 August IWC told Mr X it would implement his mother’s independence plan from 24 September.
33. In September Mrs Y went into hospital with a fractured hip.
34. IWC arranged a meeting with WSCC for 7 September to discuss the funding for Mrs Y. But it decided to cancel the meeting because it had now agreed the funding to meet her needs under the Care Act. It noted that if Mr X was not happy with the WSCC’s funding for her needs under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act, it would be for him to pursue this with WSCC.
35. Mrs Y’s condition fluctuated while in hospital. The first discharge planning meeting was on 27 September, at which IWC noted it would have to reassess Mrs Y as her needs had changed. The hospital said she was ready for discharge again on 12 October. IWC visited on 15 October to discuss the arrangements for returning home. Mr X said he wanted to be his mother’s Personal Assistant and IWC needed to take his needs as her carer into account. IWC agreed to commission care providers to provide the same care as before (45 minutes in the morning and 30 minutes in the evening). IWC had problems finding a care provider. It proposed moving Mrs Y to a temporary residential placement until a care provider could start visiting her at home on 6 November. But Mr X objected to this, saying it would distress Mrs Y.
36. Following a letter from Mr X’s Solicitor, IWC agreed to increase Mrs Y’s personal budget to £901.62 a week to provide:
• an extra night sit so Mr X could go away for two nights a week; and
• for a carer to visit for 30 mins each evening to help with personal care.
37. Mr X agreed to this, while noting he wanted IWC to pay him as his mother’s carer. IWC’s records say it would review the package after Mrs Y had been at home for two weeks.
38. Mrs Y returned home with her son on 5 November. Mr X said:
• the independence plan would go some way towards meeting his mother’s needs, but only if he neglected his own needs;
• he would need more time off to work;
• his mother would find the presence of home carers distressing;
• they would need to wait until Mrs Y had been at home for a while to work out what was best for them both;
• IWC needed to assess his mother, having produced an independence plan without doing so.
39. On 6 November, IWC placed a notice for a Personal Assistant to support Mrs Y in the mornings and evenings. IWC also noted:
• it did not need to reassess Mrs Y’s needs, as they had not changed since the last assessment;
• if Mr X found work it would reassess his needs as his mother’s carer;
• it would not provide 24 hour care while Mr X was out of the home.
40. On 8 November a care provider confirmed it would start Mrs Y’s care package on 12 November (45 mins in the mornings, 30 mins in the evenings and two hours cleaning a week). The hospital told IWC Mr X took his mother home without taking her walking frame. Mr X says this was because it was too big for his mother, so he got community equipment services to provide walking frames the right size (one for upstairs and one for downstairs).
41. On 9 November, Mr X complained about the failure to implement his mother’s care package in full.
42. On 12 November, Mr X told IWC the Personal Assistant Jobs Noticeboard had contacted him, but this could not progress as he had not signed a Direct Payments Agreement. He said he would not sign an agreement unless IWC agreed to hold a review soon. IWC agreed to review Mrs Y’s needs on 20 November. Mr X said they needed to agree a satisfactory support plan for his mother before they could move on to direct payments. The care provider would not agree to a rate of £12.50 an hour for the two-hour cleaning call, so IWC told it not to go ahead with this. However, the care provider started delivering the personal care calls.
43. On 13 November Mr X told IWC he had to go away to be with his partner for a day or two and needed to know what support it would provide for his mother. He confirmed IWC could use the funding for respite in his mother’s independence plan to pay for this. However, IWC could not find a care provider to provide the respite. On 14 November Mr X told IWC the need for respite was no longer urgent and he could wait 10 days. Mrs Y’s Solicitor complained about the failure to implement her full independence plan.
44. On 15 November Mr X told IWC his mother had cancelled her evening calls as she did not want them.
45. On 16 November, Mr X asked IWC why the care provider had turned down the cleaning call. IWC noted the need to amend the advert on the Personal Assistant Jobs Noticeboard so it just referred to cleaning and not personal care.
46. IWC reviewed Mrs Y’s needs on 20 November. It agreed to commission a care agency to do the cleaning, increasing the cost from £25.00 to £35.20 a week, as it had not been able to recruit a Personal Assistant. However, they could not agree on other parts of IWC’s proposed independence plan, including the use of direct payments to employ personal assistants. Mr X says he asked IWC to set up a managed direct payment account for his mother, but it did not do this.
47. On 21 November Mr X agreed to a meeting with IWC managers to resolve his mother’s care package. He said they needed to agree a cut-off date by which the agreed support would either be in place or IWC would commission all his mother’s care. Mr X says they only managed because of the support provided by his partner’s frequent visits, but this was not sustainable as she had her own caring responsibilities on the mainland. In a separate e-mail he asked IWC:
• to clarify its position on implementing the WSCC support plan;
• what it was doing to implement all of Mrs Y’s independence plan;
• what else he could use the personal budget for, other than paying Personal Assistants;
• what its position was on exceptional circumstances to pay him as Mrs Y’s Personal Assistant;
• whether it would implement the same level of flexibility over respite care which had been in place over the past 10 years;
• whether it recognised Mrs Y’s need for special support and therefore the need for him to be her carer;
• how it would address the need for more support for him as his mother’s carer, given that his carer’s assessment was based on paying him as her Personal Assistant;
• why he did not have a personal budget and his own support plan.
48. On 22 November, IWC updated the advert on the Personal Assistant Jobs Noticeboard to include two waking nights, as well as 12 hours on two days a week and two hours of cleaning. The next day IWC received three expressions of interest for the waking nights. It later received an expression of interest for the daytime hours.
49. After discussing it with Mr X over the telephone, IWC sent him a financial assessment form to complete for his mother.
50. On 29 November Mr X asked IWC about progress with his mother’s assessment.
51. Mr X wrote again on 5 December about the lack of progress. He said his mother had received minimal support since she left hospital on 5 November. IWC said it understood the independence plan in place was working to support his mother. It proposed a meeting with his mother’s Social Worker (when he returned from leave next week), a Senior Manager and an IWC Solicitor. Mr X objected to the idea that his mother’s independence plan was working. IWC said the proposed meeting should go ahead.
52. On 6 December Mr X asked IWC to have his mother’s telecare removed as she said she did not need it and had unplugged it. He spoke to another officer about providing respite care. IWC offered to look at providing a four-hour sitting service twice a week.
53. On 7 December IWC decided not to tell Mr X about the expressions of interest from Personal Assistants, as he had said he would not sign the direct payment agreement. Mr X says he was waiting for IWC to set up a managed account for the direct payments but it was trying to force him to manage them himself.
54. On 10 December IWC agreed funding for a sitting service (2 x 4 hours) for three weeks.
55. After IWC chased the financial assessment form on 14 December, Mr X said it had not yet completed his mother’s needs assessment. IWC told him it had completed the assessment and had recently reviewed Mrs Y’s independence plan. It said it had not been able implement the plan because Mr X had not signed the direct payment agreement. It told him it had identified Personal Assistants, but it needed a direct payment agreement to move forward. It said it would arrange a meeting with him in the new year and asked him to confirm his availability. The care agency visiting Mrs Y said it could take on the sitting service in the new year. Mr X accepted this.
56. In response to a letter from Mrs Y’s Solicitor threatening judicial review, IWC said:
• it had assessed Mrs Y needs and reviewed them;
• it would meet Mr X in the new year to discuss his concerns;
• it would give further consideration to paying Mr X as his mother’s carer.
57. Four IWC officers visited Mr X and his mother on 9 January 2019 to discuss his concerns. IWC’s record of the meeting says:
• the care agency was providing Mrs Y with a 45-minute call each morning, two hours of cleaning a week and, since 7 January, 8 hours of sitting services a week;
• Mrs Y had cancelled the evening call;
• Mr X wanted more time away from his caring role, having been offered 24 hours and two night sits, which IWC had been unable to provide
• Mr X felt IWC had failed to implement WSCC’s support plan;
• IWC said it needed to assess Mrs Y’s needs and decided what care and support should be put in place;
• they discussed paying Mr X as his mother’s Personal Assistant, provided he register as self-employed, with his sister managing the payments;
• however, if IWC paid Mr X £102 a week it would affect his income support and carer’s allowance;
• Mr X said he would have to go back to work, but did not think his mother would accept support from carers;
• Mrs Y agreed to stay in a care home to give her son a break, but Mr X said she had previously not agreed to this;
• Mr X had been taking his mother with him when he left the island but could not afford to go on doing this;
• IWC would:
1. check employment law and the implications of the joint Power of Attorney signing an employment contract;
2. keep in touch once a week, until the issues had been resolved;
3. update Mrs Y’s independence plan to reflect the new support.
58. IWC updated Mrs Y’s independence plan on the basis that it would now commission her care. It reduced her personal budget to £268.40 a week:
• £92.40 to pay for a carer to visit for 45 minutes each morning to help with personal care;
• £23.50 for two hours of cleaning a week;
• £140.80 for eight hours of sitting services a week.
59. On 15 January IWC stopped advertising for Personal Assistants.
60. On 20 January Mr X told IWC he would no longer care for his mother. He proposed further assessments of his mother’s needs and his needs as her carer.
61. As Mr X did not return his mother’s financial assessment forms, IWC treated her as a full-cost payer. Mr X complained about this on 22 January.
62. Mrs Y went to hospital late on 30 January following an anxiety attack. On 31 January Mr X asked IWC to reinstate her evening calls, as she had been having anxiety attacks for the past few nights. IWC agreed to this but the care agency visiting Mrs Y could not take on the calls. After Mr X took his mother home he told IWC they would manage without the additional support.
63. On 15 February Mrs Y’s Advocate wrote to IWC asking about progress in resolving outstanding issues.
64. On 22 February Mr X told IWC he would stop caring for his mother in a few weeks. He complained it had not kept in contact as agreed at the meeting on 9 January. He asked IWC to send forms to his sister to set up direct payments.
65. On 26 February Mrs Y’s Advocate again chased progress in resolving the outstanding issues.
66. On 1 March IWC wrote to Mrs Y’s Solicitor. It confirmed the care in place for Mrs Y and the support for Mr X as her carer (see paragraph 58 above). It said this meant it was implementing Mrs Y’s care and support plan. It said it would not pay Mr X as her carer and referred to the Care and Support (Direct Payment) Regulations 2014 (see paragraph 76 below). It said it had not received evidence to demonstrate “necessity” as:
• Mrs Y accepts support from paid carers for personal care and is not caused any particular distress having them provide her care and sitting service;
• Mrs Y is not at risk if Mr X is not continually present (i.e. when paid carers are there);
• it does not pay other people in similar circumstances.
67. IWC said:
• Mr X should return the financial assessment form if Mrs Y was below the financial threshold (£23,250), otherwise it would continue to treat her as a full cost payer;
• Mr X should limit his contact to a weekly e-mail or face-to-face meeting, as his contact was excessive and was not helping to progress matters.
68. On 7 March Mr X told IWC his mother needed urgent support at night so he could sleep. When IWC called him, he said he was not withdrawing his support for his mother immediately but wanted to know what support IWC would provide before he went away to look for work. He said IWC was not meeting his own needs.
69. On 17 April Mr X told WSCC he and his mother had moved to the area of a different local authority, which would assess her needs under the Care Act, so WSCC may want to review her needs under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act. WSCC agreed to allocate a different Social Worker to do the review, which happened in July.
70. After the move from the Isle of Wight, Mrs Y’s new local authority assessed her social care needs under the Care Act. It agreed a personal budget of £622.77 a week which it pays as a direct payment into an account managed by Mr X’s partner. I understand part of the personal budget is paid to Mr X to meet his mother’s needs.

Is there evidence of fault by either council which caused injustice?

71. The free aftercare services provided under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act are limited to those:
• arising from or related to the mental disorder; and
• reducing the risk of a deterioration of the person’s mental condition (i.e. to prevent re-admission).
72. Until June/July 2018 WSCC funded all Mrs Y’s care under Section 117. However, in June it decided its duties had reduced significantly. This was because Mrs Y’s mental health had stabilised and could be addressed with less funding. It agreed to fund six weeks of care a year on the basis that would be enough for the times when her mental health needs were more significant. There was no fault over that.
73. Mr X asked WSCC to stop his mother’s direct payment and pay it to IWC instead. WSCC says it could not “unilaterally” stop Mrs Y’s direct payment without a review of her needs because to do so would have resulted in it failing to fulfil its duty under the Section 117 of the Mental Health Act. WSCC did not review Mrs Y’s needs until July 2019, after she had left the Isle of Wight. That was fault by WSCC. However, I cannot say this caused significant injustice to Mr X or his mother. The money remained available to meet her needs under Section 117 and it could be used to pay Mr X to care for her.
74. IWC’s offer to implement the WSCC support plan was only a temporary measure, until it had completed Mrs Y’s assessment and introduced its own care and support (independence) plan. It did that on 4 July 2018. Mr X confirmed he agreed with the assessment and they agreed interim funding to meet Mrs Y’s eligible care needs, until a longer-term care and support could be agreed. This did not include funding to pay Mr X as his mother’s carer, but it did include funding to provide respite for Mr X. However, IWC raised his expectation that this would be possible. That was fault by IWC. At the end of July 2018 IWC agreed to review its decision about paying Mr X but it appears to have taken until March 2019 to do this. That was also fault, which resulted in confusion over what might be put in place.
75. IWC’s decision not to pay Mr X as his mother’s carer is the key issue. The Care and Support (Direct Payment) Regulations 2014 exclude the use of direct payments to pay a close family member living in the same household, except:
• where the local authority consider it is necessary to pay the person to meet care needs; or
• to provide administrative and management support for the use of the direct payments.
76. The default position is that direct payments should not be used to pay close family members living in the same household. Such people may be able to claim Carer’s Allowance from the Department for Work and Pensions (as Mr X does). It appears that both WSCC and the local authority for the area in which Mrs Y and Mr X are now living consider it necessary to pay Mr X to meet his mother’s needs. However, it does not necessarily follow from this that IWC was at fault for not doing so. The issue for me to consider is whether there was fault by IWC over the way it decided it was not necessary to pay Mr X to meet his mother’s needs. IWC has explained the reasons for its decision and I can find not fault with that.
77. IWC was at fault for not assessing Mrs Y’s needs before she left hospital in November 2018. It is also clear that there have been times when her care and support (independence) plan has not been fully implemented because IWC has failed to commission all the care, in particular the care which would have provided respite to Mr X from his caring role. Not all of this has been due to fault by IWC. Mr X’s changes of opinion have been a contributory factor. Furthermore, it is difficult to quantify the injustice as it is not clear how much of the care Mrs Y would have accepted. Nevertheless, I am satisfied IWC’s faults have caused injustice which warrants an apology and financial redress.

Back to top

Agreed action

78. I recommended IWC within four weeks writes to Mr X to apologise for its failings and pays him £500 for the failure to meet all his mother’s care needs and his needs as her carer. IWC has agreed to do this.

Back to top

Final decision

79. I have completed my investigation as IWC has agreed to take the action I recommended.

Parts of the complaint I did not investigate

80. I have not investigated:
• the lack of involvement of NHS Mental Health Services, as they fall within the remit of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman;
• events involving WSCC before June 2018, as they were addressed by a previous investigation;
• events involving IWC before June 2018, as this is a late complaint (see paragraph 5 above) and there are no grounds to exercise our discretion do so. This decision takes account of the fact that WSCC was meeting all Mrs Y’s needs before June 2018.
• Events since Mr X and Mrs Y left IWC in 2019, including the complaint that WSCC has failed to make any payments for her Section 117 aftercare. This is because of the restriction in paragraph 6 above. Mr X first needs to complain to WSCC so it has an opportunity to respond to his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman