Summary: The Council delayed providing a full assessment of Ms B’s needs or a care plan which sets out how to meet those needs. There was failure in the Council’s communications with Ms B and with the housing team. As a result, Ms B did not know how her needs would be met if she moved out of her mother’s home. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B, provide her with a needs assessment, care plan and personal budget and pay her £750.

The complaint

1. Ms B is an adult woman with needs for care and support. She says the Council has not properly assessed her needs, has not provided her with a care plan and has prioritised its budget over her needs. Ms B says there were mistakes in the Council’s referral to the housing team and the Council failed to support her in her application for housing for one of the housing associations. She says the Council’s communications with her have been poor and the Council has not listened to her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I have discussed the complaint with Ms B. I have considered the documents she and the Council have sent, the relevant law, guidance and policies and both sides’ comments on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law, guidance and policies

Care Act 2014

5. The Care Act 2014, the Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014 (updated 2017) set out the Council’s duties towards adults who require care and support. The Council also has its own policies.

Needs assessment

6. Local authorities must undertake a needs assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support, regardless of whether or not the local authority thinks the individual has eligible needs.

Integrated assessments

The Guidance says people may have needs that are met by various bodies. Therefore, a holistic approach to assessment which aims to bring together all of the person’s needs may need the input of different professionals such as adult care and support, children’s services, housing, experts in the voluntary sector, relevant professionals in the criminal justice system, health or mental health professionals.

Care plan and personal budget

7. If the needs assessment identifies eligible needs, the Council will provide a support plan which outlines what services are required to meet the needs and a personal budget which sets out the costs to meet the needs.

Budgetary consideration / personal budgets

8. The personal budget must always be an amount sufficient to meet the person’s care and support needs, and must include the cost to the local authority of meeting the person’s needs which the local authority is under a duty to meet.
9. In determining how to meet needs, the local authority also takes into consideration its own finances and budgetary position, and must comply with its related public law duties. This includes the importance of ensuring that the funding available to the local authority is sufficient to meet the needs of the entire local population. The local authority may reasonably consider how to balance that requirement with the duty to meet the eligible needs of an individual in determining how an individual’s needs should be met (but not whether those needs are met).
10. However, the local authority should not set arbitrary upper limits on the costs it is willing to pay to meet needs through certain routes – doing so would not deliver an approach that is person-centred or compatible with public law principles.
11. The Guidance says that: ‘At all times, the wishes of the person must be considered and respected. For example, the personal budget should not assume that people are forced to accept specific care options, such as moving into care homes, against their will because this is perceived to be the cheapest option.’

Eligible needs

12. The threshold for eligibility is based on identifying how a person’s needs affect their ability to achieve relevant outcomes, and how this impacts on their wellbeing. Council must consider whether:
• The adult’s needs arise from a physical or mental impairment or illness.
• As a result of the adult’s needs the adult is unable to achieve 2 or more of the specified outcomes.
• As a consequence of being unable to achieve these outcomes there is a significant impact on the adult’s wellbeing.

Outcomes

13. The outcomes are:
• Managing and maintaining nutrition
• Maintaining personal hygiene
• Managing toilet needs
• Being appropriately clothed
• Being able to make use of the home safely
• Maintaining a habitable home environment
• Developing and maintaining family or other personal relationships
• Accessing and engaging in work, training, education or
• Making use of necessary facilities or services in the local community
• Carrying out caring responsibilities for a child.

Agreement of the care plan

14. The local authority must take all reasonable steps to reach agreement with the person for whom the plan is being prepared.  The plan should be completed in a timely fashion, proportionate to the needs to be met.
15. In the event that the plan cannot be agreed with the person, the local authority should state the reasons for this and the steps which must be taken to ensure that the plan is signed-off. If a dispute still remains, and the local authority feels that it has taken all reasonable steps to address the situation, it should direct the person to the local complaints procedure.

Safeguarding

16. Councils have a statutory duty to safeguard adults. Section 42 of the Act says a local authority must make necessary enquiries if it reasonably suspects an adult who has care and support needs is, or is at risk of, being abused or neglected and unable to protect himself against the abuse or neglect or risk of it because of those needs.
17. Where the actions required to protect the adult can be met by local authorities, they should take appropriate action. In some cases, safeguarding enquiries may result in the provision of care and support (under either section 18 or 19 of the Care Act), or the provision of preventative services (under section 2) or information and advice (under section 4).

What happened

18. Ms B is an adult woman who has additional needs for care and support because she has cerebral palsy and a mild learning disability.
19. Ms B lives at home with her mother and stepfather. Her mother is her main carer and also manages her finances.
20. Ms B sent an email to the Council on 17 March 2019. She said she was a wheelchair user with cerebral palsy. She said she needed the Council’s help. She wanted to live independently and said her family opposed this. She said her GP had referred her to the Council’s disability team on 12 March 2019.
21. The Council replied and said it had not received a referral from her GP. The Council contacted the GP on 18 March 2019 asking for the referral.

Needs assessment – 19 March 2019

22. On 19 March 2019, a social worker from the Council’s physical disabilities team carried out an assessment of Ms B’s needs over the telephone. Ms B said she did not want the social worker to come to her home as she did not want her mother to know that she had contacted the Council. Her mother objected to professionals visiting as she had had historical very negative experiences with Social Care.
23. The assessment said:
• Ms B used a wheelchair in her home but was able to weight bear for transfers and did not need equipment for transfers.
• Ms B could manage her personal care independently.
• Ms required support with meal preparation, domestic chores and shopping. Ms B’s mother and stepfather provided support in those areas.
• Ms B wanted to move to live independently and wanted support in finding accommodation.
• Her mother and family did not support her decision to move out.
• Ms B had eligible needs which she could not meet independently, including managing nutrition, using the home safely, maintaining the home environment, accessing work and accessing the community.
• Ms B did not qualify for support by the Council as Ms B’s family was meeting those needs.
24. The social worker said Ms B did not meet the criteria for eligibility for support, but the Council had a duty to provide information and advice. The social worker said she discussed this with Ms B and they agreed that the social worker would make a referral to its housing support team and refer Ms B to the Citizens Advice Bureau for a welfare benefits check. Once Miss B moved to the community, her eligibility would be reviewed as she would not have the family’s support.
25. Ms B complained to the Council on 23 April 2019. She said all the disabilities team had done was to refer her to the housing support team and her housing support worker was very limited in what she could do.
26. The disabilities team replied and said Ms B’s ‘concerns’ related to identifying housing and applying for benefits and budgeting. The Council had referred her to other agencies to provide these services so there were no outstanding issues, as far as the Council was concerned.
27. Ms B found housing association 1 which provided housing to people with disabilities. She was told that they needed a referral from a social worker rather than a housing support worker. She asked the disabilities team for help, but they replied and said it was the housing support worker’s role to assist her in the application.

Safeguarding referral – 11 June 2019

28. The housing support worker made a safeguarding referral to the Council’s adult safeguarding team on 11 June 2019 relating to financial and material abuse of Ms B. She had discovered that Ms B’s mother had been claiming Ms B’s personal independence payment (PIP) on Ms B’s behalf without informing Ms B. Ms B’s mother took all of Ms B’s benefits and did not allow Ms B any control over her money.
29. The Council’s adult safeguarding team considered the referral and registered it as an allegation of ‘financial and material abuse’. Ms B told the Council she did not want the Council to progress the safeguarding concern as she was still living at home and she was worried about the consequences if her mother found out. The Council therefore decided not to start a section 42 enquiry.
30. The safeguarding team recommended that the housing team should monitor the concerns and should make Ms B aware that, if she changed her mind about taking action, a new referral could be made to the safeguarding team.

Needs assessment – 4 July 2019

31. The Council carried out another assessment of Ms B’s needs on 4 July 2019. The assessment said:
• Ms B had raised concerns of financial abuse and neglect by her mother.
• Ms B paid £140 of her employment and support allowance to her mother for rent. She did not know that her mother also claimed PIP on Ms B’s behalf and had kept it for her own use.
• Ms B’s mother did not allow Ms B to have her own bank card as she said Ms B’s money was her money.
• Ms B said she felt trapped. Her mother did not allow her to have friends over or take her out into the community. She was not allowed a daily shower. She felt socially isolated and was frustrated at the controlling home environment.
• Ms B did not want to take immediate action as she was concerned that her mother would make her life unpleasant at home if she knew Ms B had told the Council about the concerns.
32. The social worker concluded:
• Ms B was experiencing financial abuse and neglect at home but was concerned about the implications if she took action to make herself safe.
• Ms B had eligible needs for support including meal provision, socialisation and remaining safe in the home.
• Ms B said she would consider respite if the situation at home deteriorated further.
• Ms B should continue to work with housing support. The social worker would refer Ms B to an occupational therapist for an assessment and would refer her to a daycentre so she would be able to go out into the community.
33. On 23 July 2019 the social worker wrote a letter to housing association 2 to apply for supported housing. He said:
• Ms B was significantly independent and managed her own personal care.
• She needed support around meal preparation and social inclusion.
• Her family was not supportive of the move and Ms B’s mother did not know about the plans.
34. Ms B’s housing support worker raised further safeguarding issues in July 2019 as Ms B told her that her mother did not allow her to shower when she wanted or allow her to do what she wanted. Ms B also said her mother was controlling and verbally rude to her.
35. The social worker wrote a letter in support of Ms B’s housing application to the housing register on 26 July 2019. He said Ms B was a wheelchair user so she needed level access accommodation. He also explained the safeguarding concerns about Ms B’s current housing with her mother.
36. There had still not been any progress on Ms B’s case by September 2019. Ms B wrote an email on 5 September 2019 with issues she wanted to be considered. She said:
• She was not ‘able to get places’ like the social worker thought she could.
• She would need carers for 6 to 8 hours a day. There were things she could do but a lot of things she could not do.
• The occupational therapist said Ms B could self-transfer but Ms B said that ‘things had to be the right height’ for this.
37. The social worker replied and said he would consider this but told Ms B that she was only eligible for a one-bedroom property as that had been the advice from the occupational therapist.
38. The social worker emailed Ms B on 10 September 2019 and said: ‘… there are options available as to how to proceed but we are not able to make decisions on your behalf. Moving to live independently in the community is a joint venture; we can present the available options, and you decide how you wish to proceed.’ He invited Ms B to a meeting on 24 September 2019 and said it was not possible to progress her case without her input.
39. The social worker had a meeting with his manager on the same day and said: ‘It was agreed that it is very difficult to make progress in relation to this case as [Ms B] has been unclear about what she requires.'
40. Ms B suggested that the social worker and she meet with her GP as her GP knew about her needs. Ms B sent emails to the social worker that she was worried that she would be ‘waiting on a floor over two hours for someone to help me’ as this had happened to her grandfather. She said: ‘I’m getting what the elderly get. Where they just pop in and I’m stuck at home.’ This was the reason she did not want a one bed property.
41. The social worker and Ms B met at the Council’s offices on 24 September 2019. They discussed the different options available: independent living with visiting domiciliary care, sheltered/warden accommodation with visiting domiciliary care, extra care housing with care on site and residential and nursing care.
42. Ms B felt that extra care housing would be ideal as it would give her 24 hours support on site. She said her grandfather had been left on the floor for hours following a fall and she did not want to same to happen to her.

GP’s letters September 2019

43. Ms B’s GP wrote letters dated in September and October 2019 and said:
• Ms B needed assistance with the wheelchair outside of the house as she did not have enough upper arm strength to propel the wheelchair for any long distance.
• She needed assistance with activities of daily living such as cooking and cleaning and activities outside the home such as shopping, attending appointments and socialising.
• Ms B suffered frequent recurrent muscular spasms causing severe leg pain which led to her legs being ‘stuck’ in a position. When this happened Ms B needed rapid assistance to release her legs from that position.
• Ms B needed a full-time live-in carer due to her medical and physical problems.
44. The social worker and Ms B visited the extra care housing (ECH) unit at housing association 2 on 21 October 2019. The ECH unit had an onsite care team which could provide support to Ms B. A person from this care team assessed Ms B’s needs.
45. Ms B emailed the social worker the next day and said she had found a care company which could support her in addition to the ECH support she would receive.
46. The social worker replied and said:
• He was confused why Ms B had contacted a care company.
• The ECH care support team should be able to meet all her needs and were available 24 hours a day so there was no need for her to contact another agency.
• The Council would not fund a 24-hour live-in carer for Ms B as it was possible to meet her needs with the provision of the ECH on site care support.
• If Ms B needed 24/7 support, then the Council would consider a residential care home and not independent living in the community.
• The Council would not fund 3-hour daily support to go into the community, but it could include support to go into the community several times a week into her care plan.
47. On 28 October 2019, Ms B was accepted for ECH properties by housing association 2.

Ms B’s complaint – November 2019

48. Ms B complained to the Council via her MP on 1 November 2019 and said:
• The social worker had never seen her or properly assessed her situation. He said she was fine living at home.
• The social worker never listened to her. He said she was going to become more independent when she lived in her own place but ‘I can tell you now that is not the case my diplegic cerebral palsy is not going to get better.’ She had explained this lots of times and the social worker still insisted that she did not need carers. She was already housebound due to her carer.
• The social worker sent the wrong information on her medical needs to the housing register.
• The physical disability team said it could not assist her in housing referrals.
• She had suggested a care company to help her for a few hours a day, but the social worker was too ‘busy thinking about the budget’. She said she was only allowed a few hours of support a week and the social worker ‘had no idea how this will affect me mentally or physically’.
• She did not want 24/7 carers in addition to the carers on site but just a few extra hours of care a day. She felt the social worker had completely misunderstood her and she felt she ‘may as well be dead.’
• All she wanted was a care agency a few hours a day to ‘go get out and about with help in my flat’.

The Council’s response

49. The Council responded and said:
• It had completed two assessments of Ms B’s needs. These said Ms B’s immediate needs were engagement with housing support, referral to an occupational therapist and recommendation to attend a day centre.
• Ms B had other needs for care and support but these ‘could not be addressed until suitable accommodation had been sourced.’
• ‘a needs assessment can be carried out over a long period of time in cases like yours where changing circumstances, such as housing, can result in a change in how needs can be met.’
• It upheld her complaint that the social worker failed to make a referral to housing association 1. The Council said the social worker had misunderstood her message and had not realised that that the housing association would not consider a referral from the housing support team, only from the social worker.
• The social worker had supported her in her housing applications.
• In response to the complaint about meeting her care needs, the Council said the social worker had explained what type of care ECH provided and that live in care would not be provided within ECH.
• ‘the assessment for your care provision following your move is still on-going as it is necessary to understand the type of property and what other services are available before we are able to agree a final support package with you.’
50. Ms B asked for a review of the complaint in December 2019 as she was not satisfied with the Council’s response. The Council reviewed the complaint in January 2020, but came to the same conclusions.
51. Ms B was allocated a new social worker on 8 November 2019 and the Council also suggested that an independent advocate may be helpful.
52. Ms B’s new social worker contacted her on 26 November 2019 to go and view the ECH properties again. Ms B said it may still be helpful to go and see some other properties at housing association 1. Ms B said she had spoken to other friends with disabilities who had different care packages and she wanted to know what her options were.

Meeting on 9 December 2019

53. The new social worker met Ms B at the Council’s office on 9 December 2019. The notes of the meeting said:
• Ms B was able transfer from her wheelchair to her bed or the shower. However, on days when she was not feeling well, Ms B was not able to do this and stayed in bed.
• Ms B sometimes experienced spasms and contractures in her legs. She managed the pain with pain medication. The social worker thought that the contractures may be a medical need and Ms B may be eligible for NHS funding to manage this.
• The social worker had spoken to the manager of the housing scheme run by housing association 1. This scheme was aimed more at people with learning disabilities although they accommodated people with physical disabilities. The social worker had contacted housing association 1 and was waiting to hear whether they had any other vacancies.
• Ms B said she wanted another agency to support her at the extra care housing and the social worker said she could request this on her behalf.
54. The social worker discussed the support Ms B would receive if she moved into extra care housing:
• Ms B required four calls a day (morning, lunch time, tea call and bedtime) for 30 minutes each, to support her with meals and with putting cream on her back in the morning and the evening.
• Ms B needed support to go into the community. The social worker suggested two calls a week at three hours each.
• Ms B had a GP review appointment once a month. The social worker said an hour to an hour and a half support could be provided for the GP appointment and this would include the transport to and from the GP.
55. Ms B was allocated an advocate in February 2020. She told the advocate that the social worker only dealt with social care, not housing or benefits. She had therefore sent her GP letter directly to the housing association 2. She said the social worker had threatened her with a nursing home and she did not want this. She felt the social worker calculated her budget wrong and chose the nursing home option because it was the cheapest option. She wanted to get out of her home situation but could not do so without the proper care in place.
56. Housing association 2 contacted the Council on 13 February 2020. The officer had received a letter from Ms B’s GP and said: ‘Looking at this I am not sure if extra care is suitable for [Ms B] or if she will be more suitable for residential care.’ She said they would have to do an assessment of Ms B and take the matter to panel. The GP letter had stated that Ms B needed a full-time live-in carer.
57. The advocate sent an email on 17 March 2020 to Ms B to confirm what was agreed in the meeting with housing association 2. She said:
• Ms B had made her application to housing association 2 which would be considered by the housing association’s panel. The housing scheme was for people over 55, but they had accepted younger tenants in the past.
• The housing association received the details of Ms B’s social worker so they could ‘obtain the care package outline to give an indication of what care is needed.’
58. On 2 April 2020, Ms B was informed that her application for housing at housing association 2 had been turned down. Ms B said this decision was made because of her age and the fact that she had a low level of care needs at home (which they could provide) and had care needs to go into the community (which they could not provide).
59. In May 2020 the Council made a referral for a continuing health care assessment to find out if Ms B could be eligible for NHS funding to meet her health needs. In February 2021 Ms B was informed that she was not eligible for NHS continuing health care funding.
60. I understand Ms B contacted the Housing Ombudsman to complain about the decision of housing association 2 to reject her application. Following this, housing association 2 is considering her appeal.

Council’s comments

61. I asked the Council whether there had been any further needs assessments or care plans since the assessment of July 2019. The Council said:
• ‘There have been no subsequent assessments or care plan since July 2019 as circumstances have not changed since the original assessment.’ It said it would carry out a new needs assessment once it knew the outcome of the CHC assessment.
62. In response to Ms B’s complaint that budgetary considerations had been the overriding factor in the Council’s decision making, the Council said:
• Ms B needs were identified through a comprehensive, professional Care Act assessment. The worker then used his judgment to decide what services may assist in meeting those needs. The worker could consider the available resources when making this decision but the Council did not make these ‘vitally important’ decision based only on finances.
• The purpose of the social worker’s email had been to manage Ms B’s expectations about what the outcome of the assessment may be, but the Council accepted that the email did not appropriately convey the Council’s position and it apologised for this.
63. I asked the Council how the Council had considered the medical evidence in its decision making. The Council said:
• The medical evidence was only one of many sources that could be considered as part of the Care Act assessment.
64. In response to what other options the Council could recommend for Ms B to live independently, the Council said:
• It was continuing to explore all options. To date all options considered had not been deemed suitable and/or acceptable.

Analysis

65. Ms B’s complaints are that the Council failed to properly assess her needs at the outset, that its communications were poor and that it never listened to her in terms of what she said her needs were or what her care plan should be.
66. The Council’s position is that it has fulfilled its duties towards Ms B in terms of the Care Act, but that it had no control over the availability of suitable housing for Ms B. It says that the lack of suitable housing was the main reason why so little progress was made on Ms B’s case.

Needs assessment and care plan

67. The Council says it carried out a comprehensive, professional Care Act assessment of Ms B’s needs and there has not been any need for a further assessment of Ms B’s needs as there have not been any changes.
68. The Council has provided me with two assessments of Ms B’s needs dated March and July 2019.
69. There was little analysis of Ms B’s needs in the March 2019 assessment as it was the Council’s position that, until the independent housing had been identified, Ms B’s needs for support were met by her mother.
70. I accept that it was difficult, in March 2019, to assess Ms B, as Ms B was worried about her mother finding out about her plans to move out. This meant that it was difficult for her to meet the social worker.
71. The Council re-assessed Ms B’s needs in July 2019. At this stage, the Council had been informed about the safeguarding concerns relating to Ms B’s mother, who was her main carer.
72. I find no fault in the Council’s decision not to start a section 42 safeguarding enquiry as Ms B had the mental capacity to make that decision. I note the Council offered Ms B respite if she wanted to move out of the home. In my view it would have been good practice for the Council to provide a full assessment of what Ms B’s needs were when she moved out into the community as the Council now knew that this was the outcome that was needed and there was more urgency in the matter.
73. The social worker met Ms B in September 2019 and they agreed ECH was the way forward. Therefore, at this stage, the Council should have carried out the full needs assessment and provided a care plan which set out what support Ms B would receive once she moved to the ECH housing. Its failure to do so was fault.
74. I think the Council’s failure to provide these documents was at the root of a lot of the later problems in the communication between the Council and Ms B, the confusion about what care and support the Council would provide and what type of housing could meet Ms B’s needs.
75. Ms B did not know what she was entitled to in terms of care and support and she worried that she would not be supported properly when she moved out. Therefore, she could not make a decision about the move as she did not have the necessary information to make that decision. Similarly, the housing support team was not clear what Ms B’s needs or what support she would receive were so it was not sure what type of housing would meet her needs.
76. The problem became clear in October 2019 when possible suitable housing was first found for Ms B - extra care housing at housing association 2.
77. The Council’s needs assessment said Ms B needed a few hours support a day to assist with meal preparation, domestic chores and shopping. My understanding is that the extra care housing was able to provide that support in-house.
78. However, Ms B had other needs which the Council had not fully addressed in its assessment which were:
• Ms B needed somebody to be present or close by on a 24/7 basis to assist her urgently if she had an emergency because her legs were seizing up.
• Ms B was unable to leave the house as she was unable to use her wheelchair for long periods of time so she needed carers every time she went into the community.
79. Ms B was worried that the Council had not explained how those needs would be met. She thought a different agency could help her to go into the community and questioned whether she needed 24/7 support. This was the trigger for the emails from Ms B which then led to the response emails from the social worker from October 2019 which were the subject of her complaint.

Communication – failure to listen

80. I agree with Ms B that there was fault by the Council in how it communicated with her about how it would meet her needs and particularly the threat of a care/nursing home in the October 2019 emails.
81. I accept that the Council was allowed to take budgetary constraints into consideration when considering a care plan and personal budget. But the Guidance clearly said the Council had to consider the person’s preferences when it made decisions. Also, more fundamentally, any alternative the Council offered must meet the person’s needs.
82. Ms B was a 29-year-old woman with a physical disability. A care/nursing home for the elderly would not have met her needs and there was no indication, as far as I could see, that the social worker checked whether there was any residential placement which would meet Ms B’s needs. Therefore, the social worker should not have used the costs of a care home for the elderly as an arbitrary limit to Ms B’s personal budget.
83. But in my view the problem was wider in that, as I explained above, Ms B was asking the Council to provide her with a care plan that set out what she would receive if she moved into ECH. The Council did not do this. For example, one of Ms B’s concerns was that she would be confined to her flat unable to go out. She wanted to be able to leave her flat every day. The Council did not say how it would meet that need.
84. The Council repeated this fault in its complaint response. It said it could not provide her with a care plan until she had moved out and that the current assessment which said her needs were housing support and so on was sufficient. This meant that a lot of Ms B’s complaints about what support she would receive, remained unanswered.
85. I accept that the care plan may require some further finalising once Ms B moved out, but I do not accept that the Council could not provide at least fully assess her needs and provide a draft care plan once the ECH housing had been identified.
86. The only time the Council provided a hint at what the care plan would be was the email from the social worker in December 2019 which gave some detail on what support Ms B may receive, but this was clearly not a substitute for a full care plan.

Interaction with the housing support team

87. The Council has already upheld Ms B’s complaint that the Council failed to support Ms B when she asked for a referral for housing association 1 in April 2019. I agree this was fault. The Council said it did not realise that the housing association did not accept referrals from the housing support team, but Ms B had explained this in her email.
88. I note that the social worker sent two letters in support of Ms B’s housing application, one to housing association 2 and a general letter. But these letters did not provide sufficient information about Ms B’s needs and may have given the impression that Ms B was more independent than she was. This went back to the underlying issue that the Council had not fully assessed Ms B’s needs. This made it more difficult for the housing team to support Ms B as they were not certain what type of housing would suit her needs without a clear understanding about the support that was on offer.
89. This was a continuing problem. I note, for example, that housing association 2 became concerned in February 2020 that it may not be able to meet Ms B’s needs as it read the letters from Ms B’s GP which said Ms B needed 24/7 care. This could have been avoided if the Council had provided a care plan which explained how Ms B’s needs could be met in ECH housing without 24/7 care.

Injustice and remedy

90. Ms B has suffered an injustice as a result of the fault as there has been a lack of clarity in what her support needs are and what care and support the Council will provide. Also, by not providing a care plan for Ms B and not following the process, Ms B was denied her right of complaint if she did not agree the plan.
91. It is difficult to say how things would have progressed, if the Council had provided the assessment and care plan earlier on and if everybody including Ms B and the housing associations had known what the plan was. Therefore, the injustice is the uncertainty of what would have been if things had been done correctly.
92. However, I do accept that some of the later delay was caused by the Covid epidemic which meant that the assessment process and the housing search slowed down. I also accept that there was a delay in the CHC assessment because of the epidemic and that this may have affected matters. I have taken that into consideration in determining the remedy.

Back to top

Agreed action

93. The Council has agreed to take the following actions within two months of the final decision:
• Apologise to Ms B in writing for the fault.
• Provide her with a full assessment of her needs and a care plan. The plan should consider what type of housing may meet Ms B’s needs and set out what the care plan is for that type of housing.
• Hold a meeting between the physical disabilities team, the housing support team and Ms B to agree a way forward.
• Pay Ms B £500 to reflect the lack of service she has received, the delays and the distress caused by the uncertainty and a further £250 to reflect her time and trouble in pursuing this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

94. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed the remedy to address the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman