Summary: Ms B complained that visits from her support worker stopped in July 2020 without warning or explanation. She was eventually informed that the support worker was off work unexpectedly, but no alternative arrangements were made until October 2020 following a reassessment. The Council was at fault in failing to inform Ms B that her support worker was off work and arrange alternative support. It has agreed to make a payment to Ms B in recognition of the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains that visits from her support worker stopped in July 2020 without warning or explanation. She was eventually informed that the support worker was off work unexpectedly, but no alternative arrangements were made until October 2020 following a reassessment.

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 considered all the information provided by Ms B, made enquiries of the Council and considered its comments and the documents it provided.
5. Ms B 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

Key facts

6. Ms B suffers from anxiety and depression and struggles to manage day-to-day issues such as letters and any changes in her life. She had been receiving one-to-one support from an allocated Support Time and Recovery Worker (STR), Officer X, for several years to help her manage stress, reduce isolation and build her confidence.
7. In 2019 an independence assessment was completed which identified that Ms B had needs arising from depression and anxiety. When mentally unwell, Ms B would have suicidal thoughts, isolate herself and struggle to maintain her self-care. The assessment concluded ongoing STR support would help in developing Ms B’s confidence and in supporting her to progress from specialist mental health support groups into more universal community activities. The resulting support plan was not completed but the recommendations from the assessment were followed and the one-to-one STR support remained in place. Ms B also continued to attend specialist mental health support groups facilitated by other STR workers.
8. In December 2019 the assessor transferred Ms B’s case to the Mental Health Team Manager, Officer Y. He transferred the case to the team review tray instead of allocating it to a case holder.
9. In March 2020 Ms B’s one-to-one visits stopped because of COVID-19 restrictions. Instead, Officer X arranged remote contact via WhatsApp. During the lockdown Ms B was struggling with her mental health so Officer X increased her contact to daily telephone calls. It was later agreed that the telephone calls would be reduced to once a week.
10. Once COVID-19 restrictions allowed, it was agreed that Ms B would have weekly face-to-face socially distanced meetings with Officer X and that she could also access support from community organisations.
11. Between July and September 2020 Officer X was off work unexpectedly. Because Ms B’s case had been placed in the team review tray rather than with a case holder, she was not informed of this.
12. On 24 July 2020 Ms B contacted one of the STR workers who facilitated the mental health groups she attended saying she was worried about Officer X as she had not heard from her since 9 July. The STR explained Officer X was fine but having to take time off work.
13. On 4 August 2020 Ms B spoke to another STR worker. She said she was struggling, worried about redundancies at work, not getting out and struggling with eating. She said she was accessing a helpline when things got too much for her.
14. On 7 August 2020 Ms B contacted the STR worker again saying no one had contacted her to let her know what was happening with Officer X and she was worried about her.
15. The Council says these messages were reported to Officer Y but he interpreted them as Ms B being concerned about Officer X rather than needing support herself.
16. On 25 September 2020 Ms B sent an email to one of the STR workers saying “I’m really struggling here. Can you please let me know what is happening with [Officer X]… I haven’t seen anyone since she has been off and am not coping with all this”.
17. Following receipt of this email, Officer Y was informed that Ms be was struggling and had no support. He asked Officer Z to contact Ms B and explain that a review would need to be completed to establish what STR support she might need and to find out how she was coping currently and whether she needed any immediate support.
18. Officer Z telephoned Ms B the same day. Ms B was not happy that she had not been contacted about changes to her support. Officer Z explained it was almost a year since her last assessment and the Council usually offered short-term support work to help people increase their independence, meet their goals and make social connections. She said Ms B’s support needed to be reviewed before any further support could be provided. She agreed to visit Ms B to complete a review the following week.
19. Ms B then sent an email to one of the STR workers saying “I’m left to assume [Officer X] doesn’t want to see me. It would have saved a lot of heartache and anxiety if someone had let me know that in July… This lack of information and uncertainty while dealing with Covid losses myself has left me in a mess”.
20. Officer Z completed a needs assessment in October 2020. She identified a plan for short-term STR support to help Ms B build confidence to access buses to enable her to engage in community activities which would increase her confidence and independence. Ms B’s case was allocated to a new STR worker.
21. Ms B complained to the Council. In its response, the Council explained that Officer X went off work unexpectedly and her manager did not know when she would be returning. It accepted Ms B should have been informed of this. The Council apologised for the worry and distress caused by the uncertainty around her support between July and October 2020.

Analysis

Failure to issue a support plan

22. The Council was at fault in failing to issue a support plan following Ms B’s independence assessment in November 2019. The Council accepts this. It says this has been addressed by training and development work to ensure thorough assessments, support plans and timely reviews are undertaken, clearly documented, and shared with service users. The Council will monitor this through case file audits.

Failure to allocate Ms B’s case

23. The Council was also at fault in failing to allocate Ms B’s case to a case holder following the assessment. Instead, her case was placed in the review tray. The Council accepts this and says officers have been reminded that an appropriate assessor must hold the case and remain involved in a person’s support while they have an active support plan. A new process has been implemented to ensure this does not happen in future.

Failure to inform/failure to provide support

24. The Council was at fault in failing to tell Ms B when Officer X was absent from work for a lengthy period. Ms B says she felt abandoned by Officer X and this seriously affected her mental health at a time when she was already struggling mentally because of the situation with COVID-19. She had become quite dependent on Officer X and suffered distress when her support ended abruptly and no information was provided.
25. The Council was also at fault in failing to provide alternative support to Ms B. She received no contact during the three months Officer X was off work. This coincided with the support worker groups being stopped because of COVID-19 restrictions and meant Ms B was left with no direct worker to contact for support. The Council failed to consider the risks to Ms B of receiving no support and, when she contacted one of the other STR workers in August 2020 stating she was struggling, officers failed to pick up on this.
26. The Council accepts it was at fault. It says the mental health team has amended its duty worker system and introduced a daily morning meeting which all staff members attend. At this meeting, any staff sickness is noted and the duty worker ensures relevant people are informed. The team ensures appropriate alternative cover and support is arranged where necessary.
27. I am satisfied the Council has made improvements to its procedures to prevent a similar situation occurring in future. It has also apologised to Ms B for the worry and distress caused by the uncertainty around her support between July and October 2020. However, I do not consider these actions fully remedy the injustice suffered by Ms B. I consider the Council should also make a payment to Ms B in recognition of the distress she suffered.

Reassessment/new support worker

28. Ms B says she was not consulted when a new support worker was allocated to her in October 2020. She says there was a “sudden and unexplained reassessment”.
29. There are no grounds to criticise the Council in this regard. The reassessment was standard procedure. Ms B’s last assessment had taken place 12 months before and it is normal procedure to complete a review every 12 months. Officer Z explained to Ms B why a review was required during the telephone conversation on 25 September 2020.
30. It is not normal practice for a council to consult the service user before allocating a new support worker and there is no requirement to do so. The Council is entitled to allocate a worker based on the best use of resources taking account of officers’ availability and caseloads.

Back to top

Agreed action

31. In addition to the apology and service improvements already made by the Council, it has agreed that, within one month, it will pay Ms B £300 in recognition of the distress she suffered because of its failure to inform her when Officer X was absent from work and the loss of support at a particularly difficult time.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I uphold Ms B’s complaint.
33. I have completed my investigation on the basis that the Council has agreed to implement the recommended remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman