Summary: Mrs C complained on behalf of her cousin, Ms B (who is deaf) about the actions of the Council in trying to set up a companion service to improve Ms B’s social isolation. We agreed with the Council’s conclusions that it was at fault and we also agreed with its proposals to put matters right, which include paying Ms B £500 for her distress and Mrs C £200 for her time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. The Council has also agreed to send Ms B a copy of its revised communications policy, place the policy on its website and to consider providing deaf awareness training to frontline staff.

The complaint

1. Mrs C complained on behalf of Ms B that Sunderland City Council (the Council), when commissioning Comfort Call (the Agency) to provide a companionship service, failed to:
• pass on key information about Ms B to the Agency resulting in the Agency sending two carers who were not aware Ms B was deaf and one of whom could not provide a service on a long term basis;
• ensure the agency was set up to communicate with deaf people and that it was able to communicate with Ms B; and
• failed to acknowledge or apologise for the poor service Ms B and Mrs C received from the Agency.
2. This caused Ms B significant distress and frustration and Mrs C was had much time and trouble in pursuing the matter for Ms B.

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. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Ms B, Mrs C and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Ms B has a history of depression and profound hearing impairment. She lives alone. In 2020 Mrs C contacted the Council on behalf of Ms B (her cousin) as she was worried about her wellbeing. Specifically, she was socially isolated and had become withdrawn. The Council did an assessment of her needs by telephone, speaking to Mrs C and Ms B. It also contacted Ms B’s GP. Mrs C felt that Ms B would benefit from some social stimulation such as a befriender, who could motivate Ms B to get up, washed and dressed and tidy her home. She felt a carer visiting for an hour twice a week would be a proportionate response as day services were not currently operating due to the pandemic.
7. The Council commissioned the Agency to carry out the visits. Ms B received no contact or information from the Agency or the Council before the carers arrived. Neither of the carers were aware that Ms B was deaf and one, who appeared to get on well with Ms B then said she could not continue on a permanent basis because it was outside her area. This discouraged Ms B to such an extent that she refused any further visits. The Council also sent Ms B an invoice for the visits.
8. Mrs C complained to the Council about the poor treatment including the difficulties she had experienced trying to communicate with the Agency and the failure of the Agency to use the ‘phone to text’ service to contact Ms B.
9. The Council replied saying that the Agency had sent carers on three occasions in July 2020 but did not realise that British sign language (BSL) was required. It said the Agency denied being rude and dismissive and said its staff had held extensive conversations with Mrs C and the social worker prior to the visits. The care assessment had not mentioned the need for specialist support services such as BSL.
10. Mrs C was unhappy with response. She felt the Council misunderstood her complaint (she never expected the carer to have BSL skills) and defended the Agency, dismissing her and Ms B’s experience. She complained to us.
11. In response to my enquiries the Council accepted fault for failing:
• to identify particular expectations of the care staff visiting Ms B;
• to ensure the Agency was set up appropriately to communicate with Ms B;
• to discuss with Ms B what she required from the carer service; and for
• to apologise to her for the poor service.
12. The Council now offered:
• its sincere apologies to Ms B for the poor service;
• to pay £500 to Ms B for the distress and frustration caused by the fault;
• to pay £200 to Mrs C for her time and trouble in pursuing the complaint;
• to cancel the invoice for the visits; and
• contact Ms B again to discuss resuming the service now.
13. It also proposed, as part of a current review of its service to people with sensory support needs, to revise and update its policy on accessible communication for people with sensory impairments and to raise these issues with all adult social care staff.

Analysis

14. I welcome the Council’s response, fully accepting fault in the way it handled this matter. I agree it should have had better communication with both the Agency (to ensure the right carers with the appropriate skills were employed) and Ms B (to ensure she knew exactly what to expect, thereby building her trust and confidence in the process). It was not a question of sourcing carers with specialist BSL skills but rather equipping them with basic information about Ms B including the fact she was deaf, instructions on how to access her property and ensuring the carers would be able to continue the visits in the longer term.
15. The failure to do this not only caused Ms B distress and frustration but destroyed her confidence that the Council could provide her with an appropriate service. I am pleased the Council has offered to approach Ms B again, and to contact Mrs C as well to ensure Ms B understands what is happening.

Back to top

Agreed action

16. I consider the actions proposed by the Council are appropriate and proportionate to put right the injustice caused to Ms B and Mrs C.
17. However, in the light of comments on my draft decision provided by Ms B and Mrs C, I recommended the Council also (within one month of the date of my final decision):
• sends a copy of its revised’ Accessible Information and Communication’ policy to Ms B and Mrs C;
• places the policy on its website in an accessible place; and
• considers providing frontline staff with deaf awareness training.
18. The Council has agreed to my additional recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Ms B and Mrs C and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman