Summary: The Council was at fault for long delays in assessing Miss X’s need for replacement taps and installing them. This meant Miss X was without appropriate taps for over a year and had considerable difficulty in washing her hands. The Council should apologise, pay her £2,000 and review its processes.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s delay in assessing her need for replacement taps, between October 2020 and July 2021, and its delay, between July 2021 and April 2022, in installing replacement taps after agreeing to do so.
2. Miss X said the failings meant she could not wash her hands without assistance for 17 months, and she did not have assistance.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
6. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
7. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

8. I considered:
• the information Miss X provided and spoke to her about the complaint;
• the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries; and
• our guidance on remedies, available on our website. This guidance sets out the key principles behind our decisions regarding what are appropriate remedies for injustice. It is not intended to be prescriptive, but rather to help inform decision making.
9. Miss X 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

Adult social care (ASC)

10. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. They must provide an assessment to everyone regardless of their finances or whether the council thinks the person has eligible needs. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the results they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where suitable their carer or any other person they might want involved.
11. Councils must carry out assessments over a suitable and reasonable timescale considering the urgency of needs and any variation in those needs. Councils should tell people when their assessment will take place and keep them informed throughout the assessment.
12. Where councils identify eligible care needs, they should prepare a care and support plan. The care and support plan should consider what needs the person has, what they want to achieve, what they can do by themselves or with existing support and what care and support may be available in the local area. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014)
13. Councils can fund minor adaptations, costing up to £1,000, for the purpose of “assisting with nursing at home or aiding daily living” (Community Care (Delayed discharges) Act regulation 2)

Covid-19 pandemic

14. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. This included guidance on maintaining personal distance from others and the importance of hand washing.
15. Relevant to this complaint, there was a second national lockdown to prevent the spread of COVID-19 between 5 November and 2 December, and a third national lockdown between 5 January and 31 March 2021. Restrictions on visiting other people in their homes were relaxed from mid-May, although this was permitted in some circumstances much earlier through the use of support bubbles.

What happened

16. Miss X suffered from a number of physical difficulties from the start of 2020, but there was a delay in getting a formal diagnosis due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Miss X said her GP wrote to the Council to ask it to carry out an ASC needs assessment in October 2020. This referral was received by team A. Complaints about the ASC needs assessment have been considered separately in another Ombudsman decision.
17. In late November, the hospital wrote to the GP to confirm their diagnosis and said Miss X would benefit from an occupational therapy (OT) review and for necessary adaptations at home. The GP made the referral on 9 December 2020. This referral was directed to team B, and an officer from team B, officer 1, called Miss X the same day seeking additional information about her needs.
18. There was some confusion because Miss X thought officer 1 was calling about the ASC needs assessment, but they were actually only considering the need for adaptations. Following the call, the Council agreed to refer to agency C to carry out an OT assessment on its behalf. The referral, made on 10 December 2020, stated the assessment should consider all transfers, including bath, toilet, bed and chair, and should also prepare a report on Miss X’s housing needs.
19. In early January 2021 agency C carried out an OT assessment by telephone. Agency C confirmed Miss X needed single storey accommodation and that a standard bathroom would meet her needs. This information was sent to the housing team to consider and concerns about the way it did so have been considered through a separate investigation. Agency C reported that Miss X had declined a bath lift.
20. Following the assessment, Miss X told officer 1 she had not declined a bath lift but wanted to provide photos so the Council could assess where it would fit. She said she needed rehousing as she could not manage the stairs but that she wanted some adaptations in the meantime. She said she had spoken to agency C about the taps, which she could not use due to pain and weakness in her hands.
21. On 8 January, officer 1 emailed Miss X with details of a Universal Knob Turner, which can be used to assist with appliances, doorknobs and taps. They said Miss X would need to purchase them herself.
22. On 16 February, Miss X asked officer 1 for an update. She said she understood officer 1 would speak to their manager, but she had not heard back from them. Officer 1 called Miss X to explain that it was for the housing team to consider rehousing her. Miss X explained the difficulties she had using her hands and officer 1 suggested Miss X speak to agency C again. Miss X emailed agency C setting out why she considered the assessment report was incomplete, including that she had told it she could not use the cooker or kitchen taps. She copied officer 1 into her email.
23. In March 2021, Miss X again contacted the Council for assistance with the taps. She explained that a neighbour, who has been assisting her, was no longer able to do so due to work commitments. The Council made a further referral to agency C, asking it to carry out a functional OT assessment. Agency C carried out a home visit and recorded Miss X had difficulty turning the taps on and off. Its report recommended looking into equipment to assist with this.
24. In April 2021, the Council provided tap turners for Miss X to try. The records show these were partially successful. However, they did not fit securely so there was a risk they would come loose over time. The Council emailed Miss X with information about alternative tap turners.
25. A joint home visit was carried out in May 2021 with an OT and social worker. Council records stated that Miss X had tried tap extensions with limited success, but she did not want a further OT visit and did not agree to the Council contacting her landlord at that point. She cancelled a planned visit in June to review her equipment. Miss X told me she was concerned about the number of people visiting in view of the risks of COVID-19 at the time.
26. After several further contacts, the Council met with Miss X and her advocate in early July 2021. At that meeting, Miss X expressed her frustration at the number of assessments being carried out and the barriers put in the way of providing support. The Council agreed to ask agency C to carry out a further assessment, which it did in late July. The second OT assessment was carried out in late July 2021. The OT recommended replacement taps for the kitchen.
27. It is unclear from the records provided when the Council formally agreed to carry out the adaptation. As Miss X was living in private rented accommodation, the Council needed her landlord’s consent. The landlord provided written consent on 21 August 2021 and the Council ordered the taps were ordered via another third party organisation, agency D, in mid September 2021.
28. The Council said the relevant tap was out of stock at its usual supplier between September and early December 2021. Miss X disputes this. She said internet searches she carried out showed the item was in stock throughout.
29. In response to an earlier draft of this decision statement, the Council provided evidence of general supply issues at that time. It said the provision of non-standard equipment through its usual provider would typically take six weeks, but the supply issues meant it was taking twice as long.
30. The Council accepts there was a delay in installing the replacement tap between early December 2021 and mid-April 2022. It said this was because agency D did not follow its processes. In its complaint response, it apologised for that delay and said it would review its processes. In response to my enquiries, the Council provided some evidence it chased agency D during that period, although it is not clear it did so specifically in relation to Miss X’s taps. It also said it now uses a different organisation for carrying out adaptations.
31. Miss X remained unhappy and complained to us. In a further complaint response, the Council again apologised, and it offered her £500 to remedy the injustice caused. Miss X did not consider the payment offered was sufficient in view of the injustice to her and our guidance on remedies.

My findings

32. The Council received the referral from Miss X’s GP asking for an OT assessment in early December. It considered the request and made a referral to agency C without delay. Agency C carried out an OT assessment in early January 2021. There was no fault in this period.
33. It is clear from the records seen the Council was aware Miss X had reported difficulty using the taps in early January 2021. Although records show tap extensions were tried with limited success in April 2021, it took until late July 2021 before the Council agreed adaptations were needed. It should not have taken over six months to reach that decision. The delay was fault.
34. The Council should have been able to try the tap turners and assess a need for replacement taps by late March. Therefore, I consider there was a four-month delay at this point.
35. The Council had the landlord’s consent in August, following which it ordered replacement taps without delay. There was a delay in obtaining the taps between mid-September and mid-December 2022. The Council has provided evidence of supply issues around that time. However, I have seen no evidence that agency D, on behalf of the Council, chased this or considered alternative taps or suppliers, which was fault. On balance, it is likely suitable taps could have been obtained sooner but for this fault, although I cannot say how much sooner. Miss X is left with some uncertainty about this.
36. The Council accepts there was a delay in installing the replacement taps between mid-December 2021 and mid-July 2022, a period of seven months, which was further fault.
37. On balance, if the Council had acted without fault, the adaptations would have made at least eleven months earlier.
38. The fault caused a significant injustice to Miss X. Our Guidance on Remedies suggests that a delay in providing adaptations in cases like this should be remedied by a payment in the range £150 to £350 per month. It says the “impact of delay on someone who can access existing bathing facilities with help, and who has such help, will be less than the impact on someone who is left for a period without any access to bathing facilities”.
39. Miss X told me she could not use the taps without assistance and did not have assistance. Council records for the period, including emails Miss X sent to the Council and organisations acting on its behalf, show Miss X had significant difficulty in using the taps throughout, although I accept she has a condition which has deteriorated over time.
40. Miss X told me she was also unable to use the bathroom taps. The records show the Council was not pursuing adaptations for the bathroom because the property was not suitable for that, and Miss X would still have needed assistance. The records also show Miss X was expecting to be rehoused. Further, the complaint to me is specifically about the kitchen taps and I am not considering the Council’s assessment of the support Miss X needed with personal care.
41. Early 2021 coincided with the third national lockdown to prevent the spread of COVID-19 when the public were advised to prioritise hand washing. Miss X also had a small child, who was unable to attend their childcare provision during the lockdown, and getting assistance from those outside the family was more difficult.
42. Taking all those factors into account, I have decided to recommend a payment based on £150 a month for the 12 months of avoidable delay I have identified. I have decided this is appropriate taking account of the injustice caused by Miss X’s considerable difficulty accessing kitchen washing facilities.

Back to top

Agreed action

43. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council will:
• apologise to Miss X for the injustice caused by the delays identified;
• pay Miss X £1,800 to remedy the injustice caused to her as a result of the delays in replacing the kitchen taps. This is based on £150 per month for eleven months, plus a further £150 for the uncertainty about whether the Council could have obtained the taps earlier if it had been more proactive in late 2022. This is in line with our guidance on remedies; and
• pay her a further £200 to remedy the additional time and trouble she was put to in pursuing the matter. This makes a total payment of £2,000.
44. Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council will:
• share the final decision with all officers involved in assessing and responding to Miss X’s needs;
• review the case to identify any lessons it can learn from it, such as any changes to its process and guidance to relevant staff that may be needed. This should include considering how it responded to Miss X's initial concerns about the adequacy of the OT assessment, the number of assessments that were needed and the way information was shared across teams, and the Council’s management of third party contractors carrying out work on its behalf.
45. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

46. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy the injustice and prevent recurrence of the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman