Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council has failed to provide respite for her and her adult son, who has complex needs. She says this has caused stress and had an emotional and physical impact on her and her family. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mrs X, complains on behalf of her adult son, Mr S, who has complex needs. She complains that the Council has failed to provide respite for her and her son.
2. Mrs X says this has caused stress and had an emotional and physical impact on her and the family. She says her husband has had to give up work in order to share the caring responsibilities with her. She says there has also been an impact on her son of not receiving respite.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated the Council’s actions from January 2019 onwards. This was the date that Mrs X’s sister stopped providing respite care for Mr S.
4. The final section of this statement contains my reason for not investigating the Council’s actions from 2016 to 2018.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
7. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered the information and documents provided by Mrs X and the Council. I spoke to Mrs X about her complaint. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.
9. I considered the relevant legislation and statutory guidance, set out below.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

10. Respite care is a service to give a carer time away from caring for an adult with care and support needs. Councils provide respite care for adults with disabilities under the Care Act 2014.
11. The Care Act says a council must carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. If a council decides a person is eligible for care, it must prepare a care and support plan. Guidance says that developing the care and support plan should be person-centred and person-led. The plan must detail the person’s needs that are to be met, and how those need will be met. The plan must also be proportionate to the needs.
12. The Care Act says that a council is able to meet a carer’s needs by providing a service directly to the adult needing care.

What happened

13. Mrs X’s adult son, Mr S, has complex needs. Mrs X cares for Mr S at the family home. Mr S has a care and support plan which identifies the need for respite. Mrs X’s sister provided some of Mr S’s care for a period of time, which gave respite for both Mr S and Mrs X.
14. In January 2019, Mrs X told the Council there were problems with that arrangement because her sister could no longer cope. The Council proposed some support for Mr S to access the community. The Council says Mrs X said this was not suitable because she had safety concerns.
15. In March, the Council offered Mrs X emergency respite. It says she declined this. The Council then offered Mr S a place at a day centre for an hour a day, each weekday. Mr S used this day centre once but did not return. Mrs X says this was because the day centre could not support Mr S.
16. In April, the Council discussed support with Mrs X, to help Mr S access the community. It says Mrs X refused this as she felt it would not be safe for Mr S.
17. In May/June, the Council considered offering respite at a respite centre but there was no availability at that time.
18. In June, the Council discussed with Mrs X a possible overnight stay at a hotel while Mr S was cared for by care staff. It says this suggestion did not go any further because Mrs X felt it would not be right.
19. Also in June, Mrs X visited another respite care provider. The Council says Mrs X felt it would be too quiet for Mr X and he would cause to much disruption. The Council says it tried to access support from other service providers but none were able to help at that stage.
20. In July, a care provider looked at whether they could provide Mr S with support. Also in July, Mrs X visited another respite centre. Mrs X felt this was not suitable because Mr S would be charged for any damage he caused (because it was not a Council-owned or Council-run respite centre).
21. In August, Mrs X and Mr S visited Respite Centre A, which has both residential care and self-contained flats for respite stays. The plan was for Mr S to have respite stays in a self-contained flat. Mr S had stayed in the residential section there years previously and had a negative experience. Mrs X felt that Respite Centre A was not suitable because of Mr S’s negative experience which left him unwilling to return to that location.
22. The Council offered reassurance to Mrs X that it could work with Mr S to overcome the negative experience and address the family’s concerns.
23. Also in August, Mrs X complained to the Council. The Council replied at the end of the month. Mrs X complained that the self-contained flats at Respite Centre A are unsafe and unsuitable because they are not solidly built. The Council said the flats are of standard construction, and it could arrange specific adaptations if necessary.
24. Mrs X then complained to the Ombudsman.
25. In September, Council staff met with Mrs X and Mr S. The plan was to gradually reintroduce Mr S to Respite Centre A. However, when Mr S visited Respite Centre A with his father, there was an incident.
26. The Council then offered Mrs X two further respite options, both of which Mrs X felt were inappropriate. Mrs X told the Council she would not engage with any further assessment until it had dealt with her complaint.
27. In November, the Council offered Mr S a place at another facility, once it was vacant and ready for use. However, this property was later withdrawn by its landlord in February 2020.
28. In February 2020, the Council met with Mrs X and again discussed Respite Centre A. Mrs X accepted this offer.
29. In March, Mrs X visited Respite Centre A with Mr S’s social worker. They agreed that Mr S would visit Respite Centre A twice in April, before any respite overnight stays. The plan was for Mr S to get used to staff and the location before staying overnight.
30. Due to coronavirus, Mr S’s stay at Respite Centre A in April did not go ahead.
31. The Council offered for Mr S to visit Respite Centre A in June. The Council says Mrs X rejected this.
32. In June, Mrs X received a further response to her complaint. This explained that the Council had offered various respite options to Mrs X which she felt were unsuitable. It said it was clear it had been difficult to source appropriate and suitable support for Mr S, but there were options available to him that the Council assessed as suitable.

Analysis

33. Mrs X complains that the Council has failed to provide respite for her and her son, Mr S.
34. Since January 2019, when Mrs X’s sister stopped providing care/respite, I find that the Council offered Mrs X five respite options. This does not include the property that was initially offered in December 2019 but later withdrawn by the landlord.
35. The Council says it also considered respite in the form of carers going to Mrs X’s home. It says this did not go ahead because Mrs X did not feel she could leave Mr S alone with carers in the home while she was not there.
36. I therefore cannot agree with Mrs X that the Council has failed to provide respite. It has offered respite options which were assessed as suitable to meet Mr S’s needs, and a plan to support Mr S to access Respite Centre A. It appears that Mrs X has now accepted the respite option offered at Respite Centre A.
37. Mrs X acknowledges that the Council offered respite placements. She denies that she declined any placements. She says the placements were withdrawn for various reasons, either because they were unsuitable or because they were not available. Having considered the Council’s evidence, I do not agree with Mrs X.
38. I do not find the Council at fault. The Council has sourced and offered a variety of respite options to Mrs X, the majority of which she has refused. This is not fault.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have completed my investigation. I do not uphold Mrs X’s complaint. This is because there is no fault.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

40. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints that are more than 12 months after the complainant first had knowledge of the problem, unless there are good reasons to do so.
41. In this case, Mrs X wants the Ombudsman to investigate the Council’s actions from 2016 onwards.
42. Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman in August 2019. But she had knowledge of the problem since 2016. Overall, I consider that reasonable opportunities existed for Mrs X to have pursued this matter in a more timely fashion, and within the time limits laid down in law.
43. For this reason, I have decided there are no good reasons to exercise the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate this part of Mrs X’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman