Summary: We have upheld some of Ms X’s complaints about a council reducing her brother’s care. We found the council took too long to complete an assessment and was not open with the family when safeguarding issues were raised. This was fault which caused avoidable distress. To remedy the injustice, the council will apologise and make a symbolic payment as described in this statement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains on behalf of her brother Mr B that City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (the Council):
1. Took two years to complete a social care assessment
2. Reduced Mr B’s care (from two staff to one) despite a best interests meeting concluding he required more support
3. Failed to consider relevant reports about Mr B
4. Gave little notice when reducing Mr B’s care, leading to a serious incident
5. Dealt with issues through safeguarding procedures without hearing the family’s views. This led to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) stopping Mr B’s benefits and withdrawing appointeeship
6. Involved an advocate when this was inappropriate as Mr B’s family could advocate for him
7. Shared a confidential letter with the DWP
8. Did not investigate the complaint fairly.

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

• The complaint to the LGSCO and supporting documents
• The Council’s complaint response
• Documents described later in this statement
1. I discussed the complaint with Ms X.
2. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

6. A council must carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. (Care Act 2014, section 9)
7. The Care Act spells out the duty to meet eligible needs (needs which meet the eligibility criteria). (Care Act 2014, section 18)
8. An adult’s needs meet the eligibility criteria if they arise from or are related to a physical or mental impairment or illness (which includes a brain injury) and as a result the adult cannot achieve two or more of the following outcomes and as a result there is or is likely to be a significant impact on well-being:
• Managing and maintaining nutrition
• Maintaining personal hygiene
• Managing toilet needs
• Being appropriately clothed
• Making use of the home safely
• Maintaining a habitable home environment
• Accessing work, training, education
• Making use of facilities or services in the community
• Carrying out caring responsibilities.

(Care and Support (Eligibility Criteria) Regulations 2014, Regulation

9. If a council decides a person is eligible for care, it should prepare a care and support plan which specifies the needs identified in the assessment, says whether and to what extent the needs meet the eligibility criteria and specifies the needs the council is going to meet and how this will be done. The council should give a copy of the care and support plan to the person. (Care Act 2014, sections 24 and 25)
10. There are options for arranging and managing a person’s care. A council can commission care for the person, or they can have a direct payment. A direct payment is money a council gives to a person (or their representative) to organise and buy their own care. A combination of care commissioned by the council and a direct payment is also possible.
11. A council must keep a care and support plan under review, generally and on a reasonable request from the person to whom the plan relates. A council can revise a care and support plan if circumstances have changed in a way that affects the plan, and if doing so, must involve the person. The council must take reasonable steps to reach agreement with the adult concerned. (Care Act 2014, sections 27 and 28)
12. An assessment should be carried out over an appropriate and reasonable timescale taking into account the urgency of needs. Councils should give the person an indicative timescale and keep them updated. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014, Paragraph 6.24)
13. Statutory Guidance explains a council should review a care and support plan at least every year, upon request or in response to a change in circumstances (Care and Support Statutory Guidance, Paragraph 13.32)
14. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Code of Practice to the Mental Capacity Act (the Code of Practice) sets out the principles for making decisions for adults who lack mental capacity to make a specific decision. An assessment of a person’s mental capacity is required where their capacity is in doubt (Code of Practice paragraph 4.34)
15. Where a person lacks capacity to make a decision, any decision made on their behalf should be taken in their best interests. There is a checklist of things to consider:
• The person’s past and present wishes and feelings
• The beliefs and values which would influence them if they had capacity
• Other factors they would likely consider if able to do so.
16. When dealing with adults who lack capacity to make decisions about their care, councils should consult and take into account the views of: people the person has named to consult; carers; their attorney or deputy. Generally, councils consult about care and support plans by holding a best interests meeting involving relevant people.
17. Chapter 10 of the Code of Practice sets out the role of an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) and explains this is a person who supports and represents people who lack capacity to make important decisions about care and who have no family or friends it would be appropriate to consult with. The information the IMCA provides must be taken into account by the decision maker. Councils must instruct an IMCA if they propose a change of accommodation and they may instruct an IMCA during a review of a care and support plan or during safeguarding processes if they propose to take protective measures.
18. If a council has reasonable cause to suspect abuse of an adult who needs care and support, it must make whatever enquiries it thinks is necessary to decide whether any action should be taken to protect the adult. (Care Act 2014, section 42)
19. Inquiries a council makes under section 42 of the Care Act 2014 are usually known as safeguarding investigations. The Council’s safeguarding procedures say that people alleged to have caused harm should be treated fairly. And in line with the rules of natural justice, they should receive information to enable them to understand the allegations and allow their view to be heard.

What happened

Background

20. When I refer to ‘two to one’ or ‘double handed’ care and support in this statement, I mean two carers (also known as personal assistants) supporting or caring for Mr B at a time. I have taken the chronology of events from information and documents supplied by the Council and Ms X.
21. Mr B has autism, learning disabilities and a history of challenging behaviour. He lives with his mother. Other family members including his brother Mr C and sister in law, Mrs C, live close by. Mr B is eligible for social care services and has a care package made up of a direct payment with which his family arranges and pays personal assistants (Mr and Mrs C) to care for Mr B part of the week. The Council also commissions a care provider (an agency) to support Mr B to access the community and provide some care in the home. Mr B’s care arrangements have been in place for at least 15 years without significant changes until the events leading to this complaint.
22. Until 2018, the Council’s funding for Mr B’s care was enough to cover double handed care for him in the community and in the home. The complaint about care funding is that the Council decided Mr B only required one carer when he was at home.

March to July 2018

23. Mr B’s current social worker started working with him in March. She spoke about Mr B’s care with the care provider which the Council was commissioning to provide Mr B with support Monday to Wednesday in the evenings. The social worker also met with the family. At the meeting, the social worker noted Mr C said Mr B did not have any challenging behaviours when he was supporting Mr B. The social worker also noted the care provider told her Mr B often wanted to return home at 8 pm but his mother wanted him to stay out until 10 pm and Mr B had little money for activities.
24. The social worker met again with Mr B’s mother and Mr C. They discussed an incident where Mr B had hit some cars and furniture in the house and an incident in the swimming pool where one worker had managed to calm Mr B down. The Council’s records do not say when these incidents happened.
25. The care provider raised concerns with the social worker about the family not providing enough money for Mr B to undertake meaningful activities. (A direct payment does not cover the cost of activities, only the cost of support or care; the expectation is the person funds activities themselves from their benefits.)
26. In May, the care provider told the social worker there had been no incidents of challenging behaviour and Mr B’s behaviour was easy to manage. The day centre said Mr B might touch people inappropriately and so he needed two to one support.
27. Mr B went into a care home for respite care while Mr C went away for a few weeks. There were no reported incidents of challenging behaviour.
28. The social worker met Mr C at the end of June to talk about reducing two to one support. Mr B’s mother had reported Mr B did not go to bed until midnight. The social worker suggested Mr B would be better returning home at 8 pm to unwind. The social worker said double handed care was too restrictive and not needed in the home and there had been few incidents of challenging behaviour at home. She noted Mr B’s mother would also be in the home at the same time as a single support worker. The social worker explained that a mental capacity assessment would take place about Mr B’s capacity to make decisions about his care and support and the Council would instruct an IMCA if he lacked capacity.
29. At the end of June, the social worker emailed Mr C explaining the timings of the second support worker would be reduced on 6 dates in July. (It is unclear from the email whether the reductions would be continuing after those dates or whether it was a trial, but it appeared they did). Mr C replied objecting to the changes. He provided a statement from one of Mr B’s support workers which said Mr B needed two to one support in the community and it would be risky to reduce his package to one to one. The social worker responded to Mr C’s email saying the reduction would remain.
30. The social worker completed a social care assessment at the start of July. Mr B was eligible for social care because he could not meet eight of the nine outcomes described in paragraph seven without care and support. In terms of accessing the community, the Council’s view was:

“Mr B needs support when he goes out in the community. He requires one to one support by experienced staff who know how to put in boundaries and use redirection techniques. There was an incident in December. This could have been avoided if staff had taken time to walk Mr B round the block to check his behaviour as he was upset at being asked to leave a family party. Staff are aware they need to assess Mr B at all times before putting him in the car.”

31. The assessment concluded Mr B’s behaviour was well-managed. Professionals felt he needed time to wind down at night and this was why support was being reduced to one to one for two hours at night. The assessment noted the views of other professionals included the manager of the care provider who felt Mr B could be managed in the community with one member of staff.
32. The assessment summarised Mr B’s views on his care and his preferences: he liked the day centre and his support worker and the assessment set out the activities he enjoyed. The assessment also set out the family’s view that Mr B needed two to one support as he reacted differently to people when out and about and there had been an incident in December 2017 where he assaulted a worker and damaged his car. The social worker noted this was the only reported incident in the past six years. The family’s view was that there was a risk to Mr B and others if he did not have two to one support at all times.
33. It appears the change to one to one support in the home which started in July 2018, continued. The care provider had been providing two to one support on Monday to Wednesday from 4 to 10 pm. This changed to two to one support between 4 and 8pm, with Mr B returning home at 8 pm and getting one to one support between 8 and 10pm.
34. The social worker assessed Mr B’s mental capacity to decide on care and support. The outcome was he lacked capacity. The social worker also met with the family to discuss why Mr B had not been going to the day centre regularly.
35. The day centre manager set out the risks to other day centre users from Mr B. these included: taking their food, pinching, drawing on others’ work and making false allegations. The social worker said these risks could be managed by one person and evidence suggested Mr B had done these things previously even when supported by two staff.
36. Mr C made a referral to the Council’s adult safeguarding team about the changes to Mr B’s care. He said there had been many incidents of challenging behaviour but he had not kept records. The Council considered the issues Mr C was raising were not appropriate for safeguarding. A social worker phoned Mr C to say the Council would deal with his concerns through a best interests meeting and involve an IMCA and Mr B’s social worker had given appropriate reasons for the changes to care. The Council decided to close the referral and not deal with it through safeguarding. Mr C told me that there was a meeting which he attended but this did not address any of his concerns and he was not given any feedback that the Council was not pursuing the concerns he had raised through its safeguarding procedures.
37. The social worker referred Mr B to an IMCA. The IMCA told the social worker he felt there was no role for him currently.

August and September

38. The care provider told the social worker about an incident with Mr B’s family. The care provider said Mr B had been unwell and wanted to return home early, but the family allegedly refused to let him go home because they were out. Mr C told me this was not what had happened. Mr C said the care provider wanted to bring Mr B back home as they were finding him difficult to support and the police were called.
39. In August there was an incident where Mr B assaulted a support worker and hit cars. The care provider’s manager told the social worker that she felt it was because Mr B was upset about his regular support worker not being at work. The care provider ended the service to Mr B because of the incident with the support worker. The care provider wrote to the Council saying it was out of character for Mr B and there had been no incidents in the last seven years and Mr B had been targeting one member of staff. The Council found a new care provider to replace the other and the new provider started supporting Mr B straight away. The Council told me:
• When asked, Mr B said he had assaulted the worker because he missed his other regular support worker.
• The care provider withdrew the service because Mr B was targeting one worker.
• There had been no incidents with the current care provider.
40. Also in August, the social worker made a referral to the Council’s adult safeguarding team about:
1. Use of the direct payment, in particular, Mr and Mrs C not providing Mr B with meaningful, structured activities
2. Mr B not going to the day centre when the social worker visited unannounced three times
3. he incident where Mr B was allegedly not allowed to return home and another incident where the family would not let him back before 10 pm
4. The family saying Mr B did not have money for activities and a lack of clarity about who managed Mr B’s benefits
5. She did not consider the family were acting in Mr B’s best interests.
41. The Council’s safeguarding team held a strategy meeting. Officers decided the social worker would carry out a mental capacity assessment on Mr B and refer him to an IMCA. A senior practitioner was allocated to investigate the issues.

October and November

42. An undated case note suggests a council officer (possibly the senior practitioner) discussed the alerts against Mr C with him and he denied preventing Mr B from returning home. Mr C said the family assessed what activities to do with Mr B on a day to day basis and did not have a set plan. A senior practitioner made inquiries and considered each of the allegations the social worker had raised (see paragraph 39) and noted:
• There was no evidence to support allegation (a)
• When asked, Mr C denied refusing to let Mr B back in the house
• Allegation (d) could be followed up with the Department for Work and Pensions
• Issues about what was in Mr B’s best interests should be considered through the best interests process and not through safeguarding
• Involving an IMCA would be good practice.
43. The social worker spoke to Mr B’s advocate who said he felt Mr B needed two staff to support him. The social worker spoke to the new care provider who reported no serious incidents, but Mr B had tried to touch a member of staff in the car.
44. At the end of October, the social worker met with Mr C to look at the proposed care and support plan. The social worker explained there had been one incident of concern with the current provider (which was when Mr B was in the car) and she said the family had told her Mr B travelled by car for four hours with no problems. The social worker said there had been no reported incidents in the home. Mr C said there were always incidents and he did not document them.
45. An IMCA prepared a report in November 2018. The purpose of the report was to establish Mr B’s views about the issues the social worker raised in the social worker’s safeguarding alert. The report said:
• Mr B gave no clear views about where he wanted to live or about his finances
• He would benefit from a referral to a speech and language therapist to establish his communication needs
• He gave no clear views about the care he received from his brother and sister-in-law
• He had no clear views about two to one care
• He said he liked going to the day centre.

Mr C disputes what the IMCA put in the report. He says Mr B made clear gestures that he wanted to stay with the family at home and was happy with the support he was getting.

46. Mr B’s mother had been acting as his appointee. An appointee is an adult that the Department for Work and Pensions authorises to claim and manage another person’s welfare benefits. The Council’s case notes indicated Mr B’s benefit had stopped in April 2018 due to a computer error, but the family had only contacted the DWP about this in October. When asked, Mr C said he had not been able to get through to the DWP by phone. The Council took on appointeeship of Mr B’s benefits in November. It is unclear from the records whether the DWP or the Council instigated this. There is no record of the social worker or any other council officer consulting or discussing with Mr B’s family about the Council becoming appointee. The Council commissioned an agency to manage the appointeeship on its behalf. Mr C told me a DWP officer visited his mother at home in October 2018 and said the Council had told the DWP about concerns about the way his mother had been managing Mr B’s money.

December 2018 to February 2019

47. The social worker spoke to the complaints team at the DWP and said she was concerned Mr B’s benefits had not yet re-started. The records indicate council officers liaised with the DWP to get the benefits paid. Mr C said he was upset he had not been asked to be the appointee. The social worker said due to the safeguarding concern it was felt best to have an independent appointee. Mr C told me council officers said he could not be an appointee as he worked for Mr B
48. There was a best interests meeting at the end of February. Mr B’s IMCA, Mr C and Ms X and council officers attended. The purpose of the meeting was to decide whether the proposed care and support plan was in Mr B’s best interests. The minutes recorded the family’s views: they were against any reduction in support, any talk of reduction made Mr B’s behaviour worse, two workers were needed due to the high demands placed on individual workers. The IMCA noted outside factors in the community could not be controlled. There was no decision made by the Council about whether the proposed care and support plan was in Mr B’s best interests.
49. Mr C went out of the country for a few weeks and a care provider supported Mr B while he was away.

February 2019: The Council’s response to the complaint

50. Ms X and Mr C complained to the Council. Its response said:
• A social worker assessed Mr B and identified his needs could be met in a more strength-based way
• The care had not been reduced and was under review. There were no reports from professionals of any outbursts of violence and aggression and Mr B had been settled and calm each time he was seen
• It was sorry the assessment was not yet complete and apologised for the uncertainty
• The family had been offered a date for a best interests meeting
• There had been two incidents in the past six years. The Council would consider these incidents when developing Mr B’s care and support plan
• His concerns about a reduction in care were not a safeguarding issue
• A social worker raised a safeguarding concern because the care provider told her Mr C would not let Mr B return home despite Mr B being unwell. The Council expects paid staff to have a key so that Mr B can go home any time he wants. This has now been provided. The outcome of the safeguarding alert was inconclusive
• The DWP told the social worker that Mr B’s disability benefit stopped in April 2018 due to a computer error and that the appointee (Mr B’s mother) did not contact the DWP until October. This raised concerns about how she was managing Mr B’s finances. The DWP decided to stop the appointeeship and the Council had no control over this. An officer had spoken to Mr B about this in August 2018
• The Council had not shared information about Mr B’s mother with the DWP.

Events since the Council’s complaint response

51. In April, Ms X emailed the social worker to ask if she could be Mr B’s appointee. The social worker refused.
52. A speech and language therapist (SALT) drew up a communication passport in May. This is a document with information about Mr B, his likes and dislikes and about the best way to communicate with him. It said he needed two to one support at all times. The Council told me the SALT only spoke to Mr C when she devised the communication passport and so the content reflected only his views. Mr C told me he had never spoken to the SALT.
53. Ms X complained to us in May 2019.
54. In the middle of May, the social worker sent the proposed care and support plan to the Council’s funding panel. (The funding panel is a group of senior social workers or manager who approve social care funding.) The care proposed was:
• Monday and Tuesday: two to one support from 4 to 7 pm to access the community. One to one support at home from 7 to 10 pm
• Wednesday: two to one support in the community from 4 to 6 then two to one support from 6 to 9 at the sauna then one to one at home.
• Tuesday and Thursday: one to one support at home 10 am to noon; two to one support in the community noon to 4 pm.
55. The social worker discussed Mr B with the care provider who reported there had been no problems with support in the home. Its view was Mr B could be managed one to one in the community with a worker who was skilled in distraction techniques as he tended to reach out and touch people to say hello, but was not aggressive. The care provider said Mr B had enough money for activities.
56. The social worker wrote to the family inviting them to a meeting to discuss the care and support plan. The letter set out the changes to the plan I have described in the previous paragraph. The letter went on to say that there would be no changes to the support Mr and Mrs C provided (Thursday to Sunday) until a meeting had taken place.
57. Ms X replied to the social worker saying the family did not want another meeting. The social worker wrote to her saying the new care and support plan would start on 27 May and the proposed changes allowed Mr B to access the community in the least restrictive way. The letter also said there were no negative effects on Mr B.
58. The social worker asked the community matron to draw up risk management guidelines for working with Mr B. Those guidelines (July 2019) refer to six incidents in March and April 2019 which took place when Mr B was being supported by a different care provider when Mr C was out of the country. The guidelines noted the risk factors (including changes to provision and support staff, changes to routine) and set out strategies to work with Mr B to reduce the risk of challenging behaviour. The report said Mr B should receive two to one support in the community from consistent staff who followed his communication passport and this risk assessment.

The Council’s position

59. The Council told me:
• The social care assessment took two years because the family disagreed with social workers and this prevented completion within a reasonable timescale
• The social support hours had been increased to two to one in December 2017 after an incident where an agency support worker was attacked and his car was damaged. Its view was Mr B required double-handed care when he was out in the local community. But he only required one carer when at home
• The social worker trialled changes to the care package before finalising it and involved the family in discussions. The changes were not as restrictive.
• The family made it clear at the best interests meeting that their view was Mr B needed two to one support at home. One of the care provider’s staff shared the family’s views, but could not evidence incidents to support the need for two staff in the home. The outcome of that meeting was not that Mr B needed more support, but that further information and assessments were needed before a final decision could be taken in Mr B’s best interests
• The Council sent a copy of the care and support plan to the family at the end of February 2019 with a letter explaining the reasons for decisions about where one to one support was needed and that this would be a trial. The family continued to challenge this, but the Council decided to sign off the care and support plan. It explained the reasoning to the family
• The Council considered the community matron’s report including the recommendation Mr B needed double-handed care in the community. The report did not recommend two to one support at home.
• Mr B assaulted a support worker in August 2018. The care provider withdrew. When asked, Mr B said it was because he missed his other support worker (who had been suspended). The care provider withdrew the service because Mr B was targeting one worker. There had been no incidents with the current care provider.
• The Council tried to involve Mr B and his family and took evidence into account before making changes. There was no impact on the family or Mr B due to the delay.
• The social worker denied sharing any information about Mr B’s mother with the DWP.

Was there fault?

Complaint a: The Council took two years to complete a social care assessment

60. The Council accepted it took too long to complete Mr B’s assessment. Statutory guidance (Care and Support Statutory Guidance) which we expect councils to follow requires assessments to take place within a reasonable timescale. Taking two years was too long and was fault.

Complaint b: The Council reduced Mr B’s care (from two staff to one) despite a best interests meeting concluding he required more support

61. It is not our role to say whether Mr B needs one or two support workers to care for him. It is the Council’s role to assess Mr B’s needs, decide whether he has eligible needs and if so devise a care and support plan, involving Mr B and his family, to meet eligible needs. The Council also has to keep a care and support plan under review and carry out a review when contemplating changes to the care and support plan. Just because a family disagrees with a council’s assessment of the risk of providing one support worker as opposed to two, does not mean the Council is at fault. So long as the Council has sought the family’s views and made reasonable attempts to reach agreement about any proposed changes to care.
62. The social worker emailed the family at the end of June 2018 to say the Council was reducing Mr B’s care and support the following week. Although she had already met with the family to seek their views on the changes, the reduction took place before a formal review or reassessment. Reducing the care before carrying out a review was not in line with sections 27 and 28 of the Care Act which requires the Council to seek all reasonable steps to reach agreement with the person and their family before implementing changes. The reduction in June 2018 before a review was therefore fault.
63. The Council told the family about some further smaller adjustments to the care and support plan in May 2019. Before implementing them, it offered a meeting to discuss them. The family declined. There was no fault by the Council in implementing the changes and I am satisfied it took appropriate steps to reach agreement with the family in May 2019.
64. The Council held a best interests meeting and sought the views of relevant people including Mr B, his IMCA and his family. The meeting concluded without the Council making any decision about whether the proposed changes to the care and support plan were in Mr B’s best interests. Instead, the outcome of the meeting was to commission specialist assessments. I consider the Council was at fault because it did not complete the best interests process; it should have reconvened the best interests meeting once the specialist assessments were available and had been shared with the attendees. The Council failed to act in line with the Mental Capacity Act because it did not make any decision about what was in Mr B’s best interests and this was fault.

Complaint c: The Council failed to consider relevant reports about Mr B

65. I am satisfied the Council considered the risk management guidelines about working with Mr B safely. These said he required two to one support in the community. They did not say he needed two to one support at home. There was no fault by the Council.
66. The Council explained that the communication passport reflected Mr C’s view that Mr B required double handed care at all times. The Council in my view acted without fault in disregarding this part of the SALT’s report. She had not met Mr B and so was not in a position to comment on the level of support he needed.

Complaint d: The Council gave little notice when reducing Mr B’s care, leading to a serious incident

67. This complaint refers to Mr B assaulting a support worker in August 2018.
68. As set out in paragraph 62, I consider the Council acted with fault when reducing Mr B’s support in June 2018 before carrying out a review/reassessment. The incident happened after the review and consultation with the family. I cannot say on a balance of probability that the incident was linked to the reduction in support or that there was any fault by the Council. I have taken into account the Council’s view that the incident took place at a time when one of Mr B’s usual support workers was not at work and so he may have been upset about that. That Mr B’s support worker was off work was not within the Council’s control.

Complaint e: The Council dealt with issues through safeguarding procedures without hearing the family’s views. This led to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) stopping Mr B’s benefits and withdrawing appointeeship

69. Mr B’s social worker made a safeguarding referral in August 2018 with five allegations of poor care by the family, in particular allegations about Mr C. The Council’s safeguarding procedures say a person alleged to have caused harm should be treated fairly and should receive information to enable them to understand the allegations. The records indicate a senior practitioner discussed some of the allegations on the phone with Mr C. This was partly in line with the Council’s safeguarding procedures. The senior practitioner also made internal notes about whether she considered any of the allegations had evidence to substantiate them or were issues appropriate to be dealt with through safeguarding; and the intention appears to have been not to pursue all the issues. In the circumstances and given the number of allegations, I consider the Council should have communicated further with Mr C about which of the allegations it was not pursuing. The failure to have a follow up discussion was poor communication and was fault.
70. On the evidence available, the DWP stopped Mr B’s benefit due to a computer error and not due to any information the Council shared with the DWP. There is not enough evidence to suggest the DWP revoked Mr B’s mother’s appointeeship due to any actions by the Council. And even if I had found that the Council shared information with the DWP about its concerns about how the appointee was managing Mr B’s money, that would not be fault because public bodies are allowed to share information where there is a concern about the welfare of a vulnerable person.
71. I consider there should have been some discussion between council officers and the family about the Council taking on apppointeeship. The failure to have a discussion was poor communication and was fault. The decision about who was to be the replacement appointee was the DWP’s and not the Council’s but there is no evidence the Council had any discussion with the family about it becoming Mr B’s appointee before taking on the role. The failure to be open was in the circumstances fault.

Complaint f: The Council involved an advocate when this was inappropriate as Mr B’s family could advocate for him

72. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by fault and I cannot see Mr B or his family suffered any injustice because the Council arranged for Mr B to have an independent advocate to represent him. The Council acted in line with the spirit of the Mental Capacity Act. Although an advocate may not have been required required in the circumstances, because Mr B had family who could represent him, I am not critical of the Council for involving an IMCA.

Complaint g: The Council shared a confidential letter with the DWP

73. The social worker denied sharing a letter with the DWP. There is not enough evidence to uphold this complaint.

Complaint h: The Council did not investigate the complaint fairly

74. There was fault in the Council’s complaint response because it did not contain sufficient information to address all the concerns the family raised. In particular:
• It said Mr B’s care had not been reduced. But the records indicate the social worker had reduced two to one support in July 2018 so the response was wrong
• It did not explain all the allegations against Mr C
• It did not explain how the Council had come to be made Mr B’s appointee and why it had decided to accept this role.

Did the fault cause injustice?

75. The delay in completing an assessment caused avoidable frustration and distress for which the Council apologised.
76. The failure to make a best interests decision about the proposed changes to Mr B’s care and support may also have caused frustration and distress, as well as uncertainty.
77. The failure to be clear with Mr C and to have a further discussion about the safeguarding allegations and to give a full response to all the family’s complaints also caused avoidable distress; as did the failure to be open about taking on appointeeship

Agreed action

78. The Council will, within one month of the final decision, apologise for the fault I have identified and pay Mr C £250 to recognise his avoidable frustration and distress.

Back to top

Final decision

79. There was fault by the Council.
80. I have upheld some of Ms X’s complaints about the way a council reduced her brother’s care. The Council took too long to complete an assessment and was not open with another family when safeguarding issues were raised. This was fault which caused avoidable distress. To remedy the injustice, the Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment as described in this statement.
81. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman