Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide adequate community care support to Mr Y as a vulnerable person causing distress and the loss of his council tenancy. We found fault as the Council failed to provide an annual support plan, remain in contact with Mr Y when he moved out of the area, transfer his case to the new council, and delayed carry out a financial assessment. But this fault did not cause Mr Y an injustice, so we have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complains for her adult son Mr Y, the Council’s Adult Social Care service failed to understand his mental health needs and provide adequate support to him as a vulnerable person.
2. Mrs X says some people were physically, mentally and financially abusing Mr Y. And both she and Mr Y asked the Council to remove him from this dangerous situation. And despite raising safeguarding alerts raised about Mr Y, the Council failed to act on them.
3. Mrs X says the Council failed to understand Mr Y’s disability and unfairly blamed him for Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) arising from his tenancy of a Council property. So, the Council threatened to end Mr Y’s tenancy causing Mrs X distress and Mr Y mental ill health, anxiety and depression. Mrs X says Mr Y left his tenancy in the end so became homeless and the Council failed to provide support while Mr X moved to a different Council area.
4. Mrs X says the Council delayed carrying out a financial assessment on Mr Y for his contribution towards his Community Care needs so he owes backdated fees and other benefits causing him distress.

Back to top

What I have investigated

5. I have investigated Mrs X’s complaints about the way the Council dealt with Mr Y’s community care needs, provided support and considered the issues of ASB from 2018. This is because it is the point when Mr Y’s situation escalated. I have not considered Mrs X’s complaints about action taken by the Council’s Housing Services as Mr Y’s landlord. The final section of this statement contains my reasons for not investigating Mrs X’s concerns about events before 2018 and action taken by Housing Services.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. 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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

7. 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)
8. 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)
9. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of housing let on a long lease by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5B, schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I have read the papers submitted by Mrs X and discussed the complaint with her. I considered the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting documents it provided. I have explained my draft decision to Mrs X and the Council and considered the comments received.

Back to top

What I found

Legal background

11. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require local authorities to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the results they want to achieve. The Council must carry out the assessment over a suitable and reasonable timescale considering the urgency of needs and any variation in those needs.

Care plan

12. The Care Act 2014 gives local authorities a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan (or a support plan for a carer). The care and support plan should consider what 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. 
13. Section 27 of the Care Act 2014 gives an expectation that local authorities should conduct a review of a care and support plan at least every 12 months. It should carry out the review as quickly as is reasonably practicable in a timely manner proportionate to the needs to be met.

Safeguarding

14. A council must make necessary enquiries if it has reason to think a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has needs for care and support which mean he or she cannot protect himself or herself. It must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse or risk. (section 42, Care Act 2014)

Background to Mr Y’s complaint

15. Mr Y is an adult diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome and a mild learning disability. In 2010 the Council assessed Mr Y as needing weekly support in the family home and community with socialisation, managing his finances, accessing education, employment and training and developing everyday skills. The Council provided three hours of support a week. The support continued in 2012.
16. In 2013 Mr Y lived in Council property under a tenancy agreement. The Council reviewed his needs increasing support to four hours a week. The Council reviewed Mr Y’s support plan in February 2014 but made no changes. A review in April 2015 increased Mr Y’s support to six hours a week.
17. In 2015 the Council considered a safeguarding referral for Mr Y and looked to move Mr Y under its exceptions housing policy because of concerns about his situation. Mr Y did not engage and decided to stay at his property. The Council reviewed Mr Y’s care needs and agreed to fund eight hours of support a week. The Council upheld the referral and set up safety measures to keep Mr Y safe.
18. The Council agreed to fund eight hours of support in 2016 and considered two safeguarding referrals. The referrals did not meet the threshold to be pursued. The Council held an Adult Protection Case Conference (APCC) in May 2017 and an unscheduled review of Mr Y’s needs in July 2017 as Mr Y was cancelling his support calls. Following the review Mr Y began his support calls again.

Events in 2018

19. The Council’s ASB service was involved with Mr Y during his tenancy due to complaints of ASB. The Council provided a detailed chronology showing it dealt with the concerns raised and says it acted proportionately throughout. It offered and put support in place it hoped would resolve the ASB from Mr Y.
20. Mr Y’s mental health and ASB declined in 2018. Mr Y’s support worker raised concerns Mr Y lacked funds to buy food because of his actions and those of others he allowed into his property. The Council provided a food voucher for Mr Y and in June 2018 received a safeguarding alert Mr Y was at crisis point. Records note Mr Y was referred for help, but he did not keep appointments. Mr Y was admitted to hospital in June 2018 for his own safety and seen by a psychiatric liaison team. Mr Y was discharged as there were no concerns for his mental health.
21. Mrs X contacted the Council in July 2018 concerned about Mr Y’s welfare. The Council recorded this a safeguarding alert and it met the threshold for investigation. The Council held a safeguarding planning meeting and agreed action for Mr Y’s social worker including liaising with the Police. The Council documents report Mr Y did not want the safeguarding meeting or concern pursued.
22. The Council received three safeguarding referrals for Mr Y during June and July 2018. The Council considered the referrals but decided they did not meet the threshold to pursue. The Council held an APCC in August 2018 and agreed to keep the safeguarding open after a meeting to go through actions. Mr Y was then receiving four hours of support a week to help him with shopping, maintenance and budgeting.
23. In July 2018 the Council’s ASB service carried out a proportionality assessment on Mr Y. This considered whether to serve Mr Y with a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) to leave his property due to the complaints of ASB over the years. The assessment noted safeguarding referrals, and meetings to discuss Mr Y’s situation.
24. The assessment looked at all concerns and previous actions taken by officers to try to resolve the ASB. This included telephone calls to Mr Y, visits to the property, witnessing incidents and issuing advisory letters. The assessment noted a Community Protection Warning issued to Mr Y where his support needs were discussed with his social worker present. The Council also proposed a voluntary Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC) with Mr Y in 2017. This is a non–legal document drafted to prevent the many complaints of nuisance, but Mr Y refused to sign it. The assessment supported seeking a NOSP to Mr Y.
25. In July 2018 Mr Y confirmed he failed to pay his bills and was behind on this Council Tax and Community Care contributions as he spent his money on other things. The social worker raised concerns Mr Y had no funds left to buy food. Mrs X felt Mr Y had little control over who he was allowing into his house and he could be coerced and controlled by people. The social worker advised Mrs X that Mr Y needed to engage in the support offered or it would not be successful which Mrs X recognised.
26. The Council gave Mr Y a food voucher and the social worker logged a safeguarding concern. The Council received a safeguarding referral for Mr Y in September 2018. This met the threshold for an enquiry and the Council investigated. The social worker escalated matters to the Police in case Mr Y was victim to financial abuse. The Police agreed to visit Mr Y. The social worker visited Mr Y and closed the safeguarding in October 2018.

Mr Y’s move from the Council’s area

27. Mrs X moved to live in a different council area. In September 2018 Mrs X complained to the Council she was unhappy with the response to the latest safeguarding alert. Mrs X said the police had not been to visit Mr Y as agreed and Mr Y was too frightened to return to his property. So, she decided he would come and live with her out of the Council’s area. Mrs X said Mr Y would not return to his property and he was in debt with Council Tax and Community Care charges. The social worker advised Mrs X and Mr Y to speak to the housing service of the new council area and offered to draft a letter of support for Mr Y’s housing application.
28. The police decided not to investigate or record any criminal activity by those Mr Y associated with. Mr Y did not want the safeguarding investigated any further, so after considering the matter the Council closed the case. The social worker arranged to visit Mr Y at Mrs X’s property to carry out a reassessment of his support plan in October 2018.
29. The social worker carried out the reassessment, discussed housing options with Mr Y and agreed to update the support plan with an extra two weeks of support to him. So, Mr Y received six hours a week. The Council confirms the extra hours were put in place. The social worker agreed to discuss options with the ASB service to prevent Mr Y losing his tenancy.
30. The Council’s Housing Services considered enforcement action against Mr Y due to the ASB complaints, impact on nearby properties and a breach of tenancy by leaving the property. The July 2018 proportionality assessment supported serving a NOSP on Mr Y who would become Intentionally Homeless. So, the Council would have no duty to house him.
31. The social worker discussed Mr Y’s situation with Housing Services and asked for mitigation for Mr Y as a vulnerable adult. Housing Services confirmed it had not served notice on Mr Y, would consider the safeguarding concerns and said it may be better for Mr Y to voluntarily end his tenancy.
32. Mr Y ended the tenancy and moved out in October 2018, so the Council did not serve the NOSP. The Council says Mr Y made the decision while in contact with his social worker and with Mrs X’s involvement. The social worker sent a letter of support on Mr Y’s behalf to the other council’s housing services as Mr Y was on the Housing Register there. The support agency confirmed it had continued to provide support to Mr Y since he left his property.
33. In November 2018 Mrs X told the social worker she had contacted the new council and Mr Y was bidding on properties in that area. Mrs X said she could not provide suitable accommodation for Mr Y’s needs and his distress impacted on the family.
34. In December 2018 Council documents show Finance services acted to reduce some of Mr Y’s debts. Mrs X raised concerns about the lack of support given to Mr Y and the distress caused by forcing him to leave his property. The Council noted it would need to stop Mr Y’s care package due to moving to the new council’s area since September 2018 and agreed to contact the new Council.

Events in 2019

35. Council records show action again by Finance Services in February 2019 about Mr Y’s finances and an officer telephoned Mrs X to explain the action taken.
36. Mrs X contacted the Council in March 2019 as she had not received a copy of Mr Y’s reassessment from October 2018. Mrs X confirmed Mr Y was still receiving support from the support agency but complained the social worker had not contacted them since the reassessment in October 2018. Mrs X said the new council offered Mr Y a property and she considered this increased his needs and support required. Mrs X believed the Council still responsible for Mr Y’s support and asked for increased support until the transition of care to the new council. Mrs X said there had been no contact from the Council about what was happening.
37. In March 2019 a duty social worker contacted the new council about Mr Y who confirmed the case allocated to a social worker. The duty social worker sent an email that day asking the new Council to carry out a reassessment. The new council asked for a copy of Mr Y’s reassessment from October 2018. The Council found the reassessment had not been added to the computer system before the social worker was absent from work. A duty support worker agreed to ensure a smooth transition of support for Mr Y between councils, and the Council would complete the reassessment. The Council allocated Mr Y’s case to a senior social worker to complete.
38. The Council sent the new council Mr Y’s support plan from 2015 as the most recent one but explained his care and support needs would have changed. The Council told Mrs X of its action in April 2019 and she agreed to Mr Y being reassessed. Mrs X then cancelled the reassessment saying the new council would be carrying out one anyway.
39. The Council apologised to Mrs X for the delay in responding to her concerns and said it was due to Mr Y’s social worker being absent from work for a while. The Council accepted it had not adequately identified the need to progress Mr Y’s case and apologised for any distress or inconvenience caused. It said a senior social worker would complete a reassessment of needs and liaise directly with the new council’s social services team.
40. In May 2019 Mr Y moved into a new flat and continued to receive support from his social worker. Mrs X agreed for the Council to reassess Mr Y. The reassessment noted Mr Y’s move to the area to start a new life and referred to Mr Y’s character and issues faced with day to day life. But it considered Mr Y had capacity to choose what he does. The Council agreed to increase the support hours to 12 a week to help Mr Y settle into his new property as he was now living alone. The Council continued to fund Mr Y’s support needs until his care transferred to the new council in June 2019.

Financial assessments and benefits

41. The Council says Mr Y’s case was one of several it did not financially assess due to different working practices in area offices. The Council appointed more officers in November 2017 to resolve matters.
42. The Council’s Welfare Benefits Officer (WBO) first contacted Mr Y in March 2018 to advise he was liable for community care charges from that date. The officer carried out a financial assessment and calculated Mr Y’s contribution as £34.49 a week from 11 March 2018. The Council ‘s documents show it sent Mr Y notifications about his financial assessments.
43. Mrs X advised the Council Mr Y could not afford the amount so the WBO carried out a Disability Related Expenditure assessment reducing the contribution to £28.02 a week. The Council reduced Mr Y’s contribution to nil in November 2018 when he moved to live with Mrs X.
44. The WBO reviewed Mr Y’s rent contribution in December 2018 when Mrs X reported Mr Y left his tenancy. The WBO awarded a discretionary housing payment (DHP) to cover the rent debt on Mr Y’s property due to ‘extenuating circumstances’. This resulted in Mr Y’s rent and Council Tax account being in credit, so the WBO arranged a refund. In December 2018 the WBO told Mr Y he no longer needed to contribute to the cost of his care and support due to his change of circumstances. But he had a backdated amount to pay. The Council sent Mrs X a statement of Mr Y’s debts about his contribution to community care.
45. The Council confirmed Mr Y received his full entitlement of Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) plus personal independence payment. The amount of ESA reduced when he moved to live with Mrs X in 2018 and reduced his contribution to nil.

My assessment

Community support

46. Following my enquiries about the complaint the Council submitted a detailed chronology showing its involvement with Mr Y from November 2010 to June 2019. The Council considers it has offered Mr Y the support needed according to the support plan drafted after assessments with Mr Y. It says it has funded Mr Y’s support needs and provided a consistent team of social workers since 2010. It says the social workers have worked well and professionally with Mr Y despite the challenges he presented to services.
47. It says Mr Y has chosen not to access the help and support offered to him to help resolve the reported problems and his ‘lack of engagement is consistent’. The Council says documents record Mr Y is deemed to have mental capacity to make decisions about his care and support and about his property and finances. But he chooses to make unwise decisions.
48. The regulations require the Council to carry out a review each year of Mr Y’s needs and to produce a support plan. The Council’s documents show the last support plan was in 2015. So, I consider there has been fault by the Council as it has not provided an annual support plan for Mr Y. The Council says Mr Y’s support plan is amalgamated into the assessment documents and Mr Y has been reassessed each year. The Council says Mr Y has not been left without care and support at any point.
49. The Council documents confirm Mr Y has been reassessed each year and there is evidence to show the Council was aware of Mr Y’s disability and mental health. The documents show the Council increased the hours of support given when needed. Because of this I do not consider Mr Y has suffered a significant injustice because of the Council’s failure to produce a new annual support plan to warrant me pursuing the matter further. Mr Y has been continually provided with support by the Council. It is unfortunate he has chosen not to engage with the support offered on occasions.
50. The Council accepted it failed to input the October 2018 reassessment onto its computer system. I consider this is fault by the Council as it is good administrative practice to ensure its records are kept up to date. However, I consider Mr Y has suffered a limited injustice as a result. This is because he was receiving the extra hours of support agreed to by the social worker from the reassessment. The support agency confirmed Mr Y was receiving support while he was living with Mrs X.
51. The documents show contact between the Council and Mrs X to November 2018. After that there is little record of contact between the Council and Mrs X over Mr Y’s community care needs. The Council accepts it failed to progress Mr Y’s case due to the absence of his social worker from work. I consider this was fault by the Council. This is because the Council should have been in contact with Mr Y during this time as it was still responsible for his community care needs.
52. However, while I find fault, I consider any injustice to Mr Y has been mitigated. This is because Mr Y was living with Mrs X and receiving the support from the support agency. In addition, there is no evidence of contact from Mrs X or Mr Y about the matter during this time with concerns raised about Mr Y’s situation. The documents also show the Council responded to Mrs X’s contact in March 2019. It carried out a reassessment and increased Mr Y’s hours of support to 12 a week when he moved into new accommodation. This extra support continued to June 2019 when Mr Y’s case transferred to the new council.
53. The Council apologised to Mrs X and Mr Y it did not progress Mr Y’s case during that time and acted to ensure cases are progressed when an officer is absent from work. This is suitable action for the Council to take and I do not consider I can achieve anything more for Mr Y through further investigation.

Safeguarding

54. Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decisions not to pursue some of the safeguarding alerts in 2018. But the decision whether to do so or not is a matter of the officers’ professional judgement. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of the decision itself without evidence of fault in the way it was made. I do not consider there is fault in this case.
55. This is because Council’s documents show it responded to the safeguarding alerts raised and assessed each one. The officers progressed the alerts that met the safeguarding threshold and recorded the action taken on each one. These are decisions the officers are entitled to make. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached these decisions.

ASB

56. The Council’s chronology and documents explain the action taken by the ASB service to try and resolve the complaints it received about Mr Y. The documents show officers visited Mr Y and explained matters to him. The Council proposed to serve a notice ending his tenancy because of the complaints of ASB received. But it did not take the action and looked at how it could prevent evicting him. However, Mr Y chose to end his tenancy. Mr Y is considered to have capacity to make such choices. So even with ongoing support Mr Y must accept his own responsibilities if he is to maintain a tenancy. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in responding to the complaints of ASB caused by Mr Y.

Financial assessment

57. The Council should have assessed Mr Y in 2010 when he started to receive community care support and reassessed him regularly to see if he was liable for any costs. The Council did not do so until 2018. I consider this was fault by the Council. But I do not consider Mr Y has been caused any injustice as a result. This is because he has only been charged from March 2018 and so has not been contributing before then. Mr Y has not been charged for backdated community care fees but only from the date the Council told him he was liable for charges.
58. The Council says Mr Y currently owed £742.68 for care and support charges as of August 2019. It says Mr Y made sporadic repayments and failed to keep to a payment plan set up. The Council expects Mr Y to pay the outstanding amount as part of his contribution to care. This is because he is deemed to have capacity to understand he was expected to contribute to the cost of care. Mr Y needs to agree a suitable repayment scheme with the Council for the outstanding Community care fees.
59. The documents show the Council responded to Mrs X’s concerns about Mr Y’s benefits and agreed a DHP to help Mr Y with his other debts. So, I do not consider there is evidence of fault in the way the Council responded to Mrs X’s concerns about this matter.

Transfer to a new authority

60. I consider the documents show the Council could have acted sooner than it did between December 2018 to March 2019 to coordinate Mr Y’s transfer to the new council. The Council noted in Mr Y’s records in December 2018 it needed to stop Mr Y’s support and agreed to contact the new council. There is no evidence the Council did so in December 2018. So, I consider there was fault by the Council.
61. But I consider any injustice suffered by Mr Y has been mitigated by the Council providing increased support from September 2018 onwards. It also provided extra support when Mr Y moved into his new accommodation in May 2019. The documents show the Council responded to Mrs X’s contact in March 2019. And contact from the new council to ensure a smooth transition until June 2019 when it ended responsibility for Mr Y’s care needs.

Back to top

Final decision

62. I am completing my investigation. I have found fault by the Council in the way it provided a support plan to Mr Y showing his community care needs, kept in contact with him once he moved to a new Council area and transferred his case to the new council. I have also found fault in the way the Council carried out a financial assessment of Mr Y’s community care charges. But these faults did not cause a significant injustice to Mr Y.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

63. As paragraph eight explains we cannot investigate complaints about matters more than 12 months ago and so I have not investigated Mrs X’s concerns raised about matters before 2018. This is because it was open to Mrs X to have complained to us before that date if she and Mr Y were unhappy about any aspects of Mr Y’s care and support provided by the Council.
64. I have not investigated Mrs X’s concerns about the way the Council’s Housing Services managed Mr Y’s tenancy or considered whether to serve a NOSP on him. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of housing let on a long lease by a council acting as a registered social housing provider.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman