Summary: Mr X complains that his care plan does not meet his needs, that the Council did not respond to his complaints, and that emails were not translated into British Sign Language as the Council promised. He says this caused stress and anxiety. He says his needs were not met. He felt ignored and could not understand what the Council sent him. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for not responding to all of Mr X’s complaints and for not translating emails into British Sign Language. This fault caused Mr X injustice. The Council will apologise to Mr X, make a payment to him, and make a service improvement. The Ombudsman does not find fault with Mr X’s care plan.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that:
1. the Council did not respond to complaints he made about his care in August 2018, October 2018, January 2019 and February 2019;
2. his care plan does not meet his needs; and,
3. the Council did not translate emails into British Sign Language as it agreed to.
2. Mr X says this has caused stress and anxiety. He says it means his care needs are not being met. He felt ignored and has not been able to fully understand what the Council sent him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We look at complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We also look at any negative impact to the person making the complaint. We call this ‘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 what a council has done or what it says it will do, we can end our investigation and write a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
5. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information from Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X, with a British Sign language interpreter, about his complaint. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments before I reached a final decision.
7. I have considered the law, guidance and policies.

Back to top

What I found

The law, guidance and policies

Care plans

8. The Care Act 2014 says councils must assess any adult who appears to need care and support. It says councils must meet an adult’s care and support needs if they are eligible.
9. Government guidance (‘Delivering Care and Support Planning: supporting the implementation of the Care Act 2014’) says that the person must be genuinely involved and have influence in the planning process. The main principle is that the care and support plan should be led by the person and should have the person at the centre of it. The plan must say what the person’s needs are and how they will be met. The plan must also be balanced with the needs.
10. The guidance says a council must take all reasonable steps to agree a plan with the person. If the person does not agree to the plan, and the council feels it has taken all reasonable steps to address the situation, it should tell the person about the complaints process.

Complaints

11. The Council has a complaints process for adult social care. This says that the Council aims to respond to complaints within 20 working days, although it may need longer.
12. It says if the person is not happy with the response, they can ask for a review. After this, the person can complain to the Ombudsman.

What happened

13. Mr X is deaf. His first language is British Sign Language (BSL). He has care needs that are met through a care and support plan. He has carers from a care agency that visit him at home.
14. In July 2018, carers from Allied Health Care began to visit Mr X at home, in line with his care plan.
15. At the end of July, there was a meeting with Mr X, the Council, Allied Health Care and a BSL interpreter. This meeting was about carers being late and what care they provided. The Council told Allied Health Care to apologise to Mr X for failing to do what it should have done.
16. In August, Mr X complained to the Council. He complained about the quality of care from Allied Health Care, including carers being late. He said he wanted carers to be able to sign in BSL so he could understand them.
17. Two days later, Allied Health Care stopped providing Mr X’s care. This was taken over by MiHomeCare.
18. Mr X emailed the Council asking why it had not responded to his complaint. The Council replied the same day saying the manager who was dealing with his complaint was off sick, but she would deal with his complaint when she came back to work.
19. A week later, the Council apologised to Mr X for the delay in dealing with his complaint.
20. The Council sent Mr X its response to his complaint on 17 September. It said a BSL interpreter would be at all future appointments with the Council. It said it would translate all its emails into BSL.
21. The Council said Mr X agreed to have carers from an agency while it looked for a personal assistant who signed BSL. It said that sometimes the timing and quality of the care he got from Allied Health Care was not the standard it expected.
22. On 11 October, Mr X emailed his social worker. He complained that carers did not come when they were supposed to. He said he wanted to formally complain.
23. On 13 October, Mr X complained again to his social worker that carers did not come when they were supposed to. He said he wanted to formally complain.
24. On 17 October, Mr X emailed his social worker four times. He complained that Allied Health Care had not apologised, he complained about his carer, and said his care plan was not working.
25. On 18 October, Mr X complained to his social worker again about the carer.
26. The social worker replied the same day. She said she spoke to the agency. She said that his usual carer was off sick, and there were no other carers able to visit him, apart from the one he complained about.
27. The social worker said she would arrange a meeting with Mr X with a BSL interpreter to discuss getting him a personal assistant who could sign in BSL.
28. At the end of October, the Council met with Mr X and a BSL interpreter. They talked about carers being late and that Mr X did not like his current carer. The Council said it would talk to the agency about it.
29. In November, the Council contacted Allied Health Care about not apologising to Mr X as it said it would.
30. Later that month, the Council met with Mr X again, with a BSL interpreter. They talked about Mr X’s options about the personal assistant. The Council said it might take some time to get a personal assistant who could sign in BSL. It agreed to advertise this job.
31. In January 2019, the Council advertised the personal assistant job.
32. On 13 January, Mr X complained to the Council about carers being late or not coming at all. He said he wanted to make a formal complaint about MiHomeCare.
33. On 8 February, Mr X again complained to the Council about his carers.
34. On 10 February, Mr X complained to the Council about his carer. He said the carer pushed him.
35. On 12 February, MiHomeCare stopped providing care for Mr X. This was taken over by another agency.

Analysis

Complaints

36. Mr X complains that the Council did not respond to complaints he made about his care in August 2018, October 2018, January 2019 and February 2019 (part A of his complaint).
37. Between August 2018 and February 2019, Mr X complained to the Council about his carers lots of times. I am looking at seven specific complaints.
38. The first complaint (August 2018) went through the Council’s complaints process. The Council sent Mr X a formal response to his complaint. For this reason, I find that the Council did respond to this complaint.
39. In the second and third complaints (11 October and 13 October 2018), Mr X said he wanted to formally complain about his carers. I have seen no evidence that the Council responded to these specific complaints.
40. The fourth complaint (18 October) was also about his carers. The social worker replied that day.
41. The Council says it did not log this fourth complaint as a formal complaint, because it was dealt with by the end of the next working day.
42. I do not find fault with the Council for not specifically dealing with Mr X’s second and third complaints. This is because all of these complaints were about the same issue, which the Council dealt with informally within a week.
43. Mr X’s fifth complaint (January 2019) was that carers had attended late or not at all. He said he wanted to formally complain.
44. Mr X’s sixth complaint (February) was that the Council did not respond to his fifth complaint.
45. The Council says it has no record of the social worker receiving these emails (the fifth and sixth complaints). It says is normal practice for all correspondence to be recorded and it would be unusual for this not to have been done on these two occasions.
46. As I have said in paragraph five, 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 evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
47. In this case, I have seen evidence that Mr X sent his social worker lots of emails, including complaint emails in January and February 2019. I have seen that the social worker replied to at least some of these emails. For this reason, I find it is more likely than not that Mr X sent these complaint emails to his social worker.
48. There is no evidence that the Council responded to Mr X’s complaints of January or February 2019. This is fault.
49. I find that this fault caused Mr X injustice because his complaints were not dealt with and he felt ignored. The injustice is limited because MiHomeCare stopped providing Mr X’s care later in February 2019.
50. The Council dealt with Mr X’s seventh complaint as a safeguarding investigation, not a complaint. I do not find fault with the Council. Mr X said the carer pushed him, so the Council did a safeguarding investigation. This is appropriate.
51. Mr X complains that he did not receive an apology from Allied Health Care.
52. The Council contacted Allied Health Care to see why it had not apologised. It is not clear if the Council ever got a reply from Allied Health Care. However, Allied Health Care is not in business anymore. For this reason, there is nothing more the Council can do about this.
53. It is unfortunate that Mr X did not get an apology. However, it is not the Council’s fault. So, I do not find the Council at fault for Mr X not getting an apology from Allied Health Care.

Care plan

54. Mr X complains that his care plan does not meet his needs (part B of the complaint).
55. Mr X says his care plan is fixed and inflexible. He says carers do not stick to the plan. Mr X says the Council has failed to find a personal assistant who can sign in British Sign Language (BSL). He says the care plan says he should be helped with organising things.
56. When carers do not stick to the care plan, Mr X tells the Council. The Council then addresses it with the care agency. Mr X has had four care agencies between July 2018 and March 2019. Changes have been made because of Mr X’s complaints about carers.
57. It is clear that Mr X knows how to raise problems about carers with the Council. The Council has changed care agencies because of this. For this reason, I do not find fault with the Council.
58. The Council has a system in place to monitor the quality of care. I find no fault with this.
59. Mr X’s care plan says he is happy with care from a general care agency until he can find a specialist carer or personal assistant who is fluent in BSL.
60. In January 2019, the Council advertised for a personal assistant for Mr X. This job description includes that he needs help organising things.
61. The Council says this part of the job (help with organising) can only be done by a personal assistant because carers cannot to do this.
62. The Council has advertised the personal assistant job since January 2019 and has had no responses.
63. The Council looked for carers from a specialist deaf care agency. It says Mr X said he did not want to use that agency because they had a bad reputation.
64. The Council has tried to get Mr X the most appropriate help, with carers who sign BSL. For this reason, I do not find fault with the Council.
65. The care plan says exactly what help carers should give to Mr X each day. This includes daily help with throwing away rubbish and paperwork.
66. I find the care plan has assessed Mr X’s needs and has set daily tasks for carers to make sure his needs are met. This is in line with the guidance. I also find that the plan has Mr X at the centre, and it has been led by what he said. I find that the plan is balanced with his needs. This is also in line with the guidance. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.
67. Mr X says he asks for reviews but when the plan is reviewed it does not contain anything he asked for.
68. The care plan reviews show the changes that have been made to carers’ hours and duties to fit with Mr X’s wants and needs. I find that the plan is balanced with Mr X’s needs, and the reviews have been done in line with guidance. For this reason, I do not find the Council at fault.
69. For the reasons given above, I do not find the Council at fault.

Translating into British Sign Language

70. Mr X complains that the Council did not translate emails into British Sign Language (BSL) as it agreed to (part C of the complaint).
71. The Council’s complaint response in September 2018 agrees to translate all emails into BSL.
72. I have seen no evidence that the Council’s complaint response or any emails after September 2018 have been translated into BSL.
73. The Council accepts that it has not done this.
74. This is fault. This fault has caused Mr X injustice because he has not been able to understand fully what has been said to him. He has spent time and trouble asking the Council to do this.

Agreed action

75. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to write to Mr X and apologise for not responding to the complaints he sent in January and February 2019, and for not translating emails or the complaint response into British Sign Language.
76. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr X of £200 because of the injustice from failing to translate emails and the complaint response into British Sign Language. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance.
77. Also, the Council has agreed to make sure that all future emails are translated as promised.
78. Within three months of this decision, the Council has agreed to remind relevant staff about what to do if they get complaints, to make sure the Council records and answers all complaints appropriately.
79. The Ombudsman will need to see evidence that these have been done.

Back to top

Final decision

80. I have completed my investigation. I uphold parts A and C of Mr X’s complaint because I have found fault causing Mr X injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice.
81. I do not uphold part B of Mr X’s complaint because I have not found fault with the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman