Summary: Mr X has complained the Council failed to meet his assessed needs. He has also raised concerns about his social worker and the outcome of the Council’s assessment of his mental capacity. I have discontinued the investigation as Mr X is unable to participate.

The complaint

1. Mr X has complained about the Council’s failure to meet his assessed needs. He is also unhappy it has failed to assign him a permanent social worker who understands his needs and who can properly support him.
2. Mr X complained about the Council’s assessment of his capacity to make decisions about his care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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)
5. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered all the information from Mr X and the Council including any comments made in response to my draft decision. Mr X has been unable to fully respond to my draft decision due to his health.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council assessed Mr X as having eligible needs and arranged the care and support required to meet these needs. The Council stopped his support in July 2017 after he was discharged from hospital. Mr X’s care has now been reinstated, but he was without support between July and October 2017. He says this had a significant impact on his mental health and wellbeing.
8. The Council says it needed to carry out a risk assessment before support could be reinstated because Mr X threatened to harm himself and support workers if they visited his home. The risk assessment was completed in July 2017 and, following a professional’s meeting, it was agreed that the Council should arrange a new care package for Mr X. However, there were delays before support started again in October 2017. The Council says this was because of difficulties it had finding a care agency that could meet Mr X’s needs and problems it says it had engaging with Mr X.
9. Mr X has also complained about how the Council assessed him under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The Council assessed Mr X’s capacity to make decision about his care in June 2017 and said that he lacked capacity. Mr X disputes this and says the Council’s assessment contains incorrect information. Mr X agreed that he sometimes lacks capacity, but says if he is given time he can weigh up information and make decisions.

Back to top

Final decision

10. My draft decision was that there was no fault by the Council. However, I can reach no final conclusion as Mr X is too unwell to participate. I have therefore discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman