Summary: There was fault in how the Council carried out its initial assessments of Mrs Z’s care needs, and how it responded when made aware that carers were unable to carry out care in accordance with Mrs Z’s support plan. Consequently, the Council charged Mrs Z for care she did not receive. The Council have now agreed to refund the fees charged.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, is complaining on behalf of his mother, whom I shall refer to as Mrs Z.
2. Mr C says the Council charged his mother for care which it did not provide because its care provider concluded that 2 carers were needed, but only 1 was provided.

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, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and information received from Mr C; and
• reviewed and considered information received from the Council; and
• communicated with Mr C about the complaint.
6. I also sent a draft version of this decision to both parties, and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. On 18 March 2019, the Council carried out an assessment of Mrs Z’s needs. It found that she had a high level of need due to poor mobility, and Mrs Z’s daughter provided 24-hour care.
8. The assessment stated that Mrs Z’s daughter assists her with showering, in a low-level access shower.
9. The Council concluded that Mrs Z should receive support from a carer once a week for showering. This care would be chargeable to Mrs Z. A support plan was subsequently created for Mrs Z.
10. The Council has a contract with Care Needs, a company that the Council has commissioned to provide adult social care on its behalf. The Council commissioned Care Needs to provide Mr C’s care.
11. At the same time an appointment for a visit from the Equipment, Aids and Adaptions Team was arranged, who later came out to assess Mrs Z’s mobility. During the assessment it was identified that a mobile chair should be provided for showering.
12. The care started on 18 April, when the Care Provider also carried out an initial assessment. The Assessment shows that a moving and handling assessment needed to be completed, but 2 carers would be needed to shower Mrs Z, as the shower has a lip which makes it unsafe.
13. On 24 April, the care provider contacted the Council and explained carers had been unable to shower Mrs Z as a lip on the shower made it unsafe to do so.
14. Subsequently, a further assessment from the Equipment, Aids and Adaptions Team approved the installation of a level access shower. The Council informed the care provider of this and recommended they give Mrs Z a body wash instead of a shower.
15. Care records show that carers continued to attend appointments but recorded that no care was required as the family had showered Mrs Z. The last care visit was on 16 May. The care agency says their carer attended Mrs Z’s property on 23 May, but nobody was home.
16. On 24 May, the Council contacted the care provider, who said the shower was unsafe for carers to move Mrs Z in and out of, and no care was being provided on visits. The Council spoke to Mr C and it was agreed that visits would be cancelled until the new shower had been installed. The care was subsequently cancelled from 30 May.

Analysis

17. On the day that care visits started, it became clear that it was unsafe for 1 carer to shower Mrs Z.
18. It seems, on balance, that this issue could have been identified, either when the Council carried out its care needs assessment, or when the Equipment, Aids and Adaptions Team carried out their first assessment. This is fault.
19. Had this been identified before the care visits started, it is likely that visits would have been postponed until after the adaptations to the shower had been made.
20. Furthermore, when the care provider informed the Council it was unable to shower Mrs Z, it suggested they body wash her instead. However, I have not seen any evidence to indicate that this was communicated to Mrs Z or any of her family members. This is further fault.
21. The Council should remedy this fault. I consider the financial remedy should be at the level of the outstanding care charges. I therefore consider that these charges should be waived.

Agreed action

22. The Council has agreed, that within 1 month of the date of my final decision, it will waive the outstanding charges.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have concluded my investigation on the basis that there was fault leading to an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman