Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to meet her adult social care needs after her support package ended in 2021. She says the Council failed to put in alternative care and failed to complete a safeguarding enquiry and this has negatively impacted on her physical and mental wellbeing. Lack of an alternative care provider from December 2021 to October 2022 is due to service failure. There is no fault causing a significant injustice in respect of the safeguarding referral.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to meet her adult social care needs after her support package ended in 2021. She says the Council failed to put in alternative care and failed to complete a safeguarding enquiry about this neglect.
2. Ms X says this has negatively impacted on her physical and mental wellbeing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’  and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended
4. 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

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• sent my draft decision to both the Council and the complainant and taken account of their comments in reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
7. Ms X was in receipt of a package of care consisting of three visits per week to enable her to access the community. Each visit lasted three hours and the carer would take Ms X out using their own car as Ms X is a wheelchair user.
8. The information provided shows that in December 2021, Ms X gave notice to the care provider to end the package of care. There is evidence to suggest the carer working with Ms X was leaving the agency and Ms X was not confident a suitable new carer could be provided as she had previously complained about the care agency.
9. Ms X did not notify the Council that she had cancelled the package of care. There is evidence that once the Council was aware it took action to discuss the situation with Ms X. The care provider said it had capacity to provide another carer but Ms X had lost faith in the agency and so did not want another carer. The Council discussed options with Ms X including using direct payments so she could employ her own personal assistant. Ms X did not want to pursue this option and after a short period of time allowed the Council to seek an alternative agency to provide the package of care.
10. The Council put details of the care package on its brokerage system and invited care providers to respond if they had availability. Only one provider responded but it transpired this was a provider Ms X had previously had difficulties with and so the offer was withdrawn.
11. In January 2022, the Council provided information to Ms X about a swimming group and a social group. It said these groups could provide transportation. It explained to Ms X that it had not been successful in finding a new care provider. The case notes say Ms X had declined using direct payments to employ a personal assistant.
12. In February 2022, a care provider said it had capacity and would be able to start the package of care on 7 February. Ms X raised some questions about how this would work. Before the agency could answer Ms X’s queries, it said it no longer had capacity to provide the care.
13. In March 2022, another agency said it had availability but that carers were not insured to use their own cars and so Ms X would have to use public transport. As a result this package of care was not pursued.
14. The information provided shows that no further care provider was found to have availability until one agreed it could provide care from 11 October. It was only able to provide two of the three sessions due to both Ms X’s and the carer’s availability. The package of care began for the two sessions per week. Ms X had a discussion with her social worker about the cost of the care and was told that it was likely to still be a nil charge.
15. The Council had arranged for this package of care to be paid for using direct payments. It says this was the preferred method and would give Ms X flexibility to change the timing of the care visits. Ms X began to receive invoices for the care and says she was shocked to find she was expected to make a financial contribution. On checking the Council found that Ms X’s income had changed she last received a package of care and so was assessed to pay £110 per week.
16. Ms X immediately said that she wanted to cancel the package of care as it was too expensive. The Council contacted the care provider and asked it to put the package on hole while it tried to resolve the situation. The Council completing the financial assessment, it found the actual cost to Ms X would be £90.60 per week. On 17 November the care provider said it was unable to continue to keep the slots available for Ms X.
17. While the Council told Ms X that it may be possible to reduce the charge if she provided bank statements so it could consider her actual living costs and apply disability related expenditure, she was clear that it was not affordable. As a result Ms X’s care with adult social care was closed.
18. Part of Ms X’s complaint relates to a safeguarding referral made about her in December 2021 as a result of the care ending. Ms X says this was not properly completed. Case notes show the Council received the safeguarding referral on 3 December 2021. A further case note on 16 December says that it did not reach the threshold for action because it was Ms X who cancelled the service and the care provided could provide alternative carers.

Analysis

19. Ms X had assessed eligible care needs which were commissioned by the Council and provided from a care agency. It appears this arrangement had been working relatively well for a period of time though it is noted Ms X had previously raised concerns with and about the care provider. In December Ms X cancelled the package of care. I am satisfied, based on the information I have seen, this was Ms X’s decision and that she cancelled directly with the care provider.
20. However, what is also clear is that Ms X still wanted the care to be provided but with a different care agency. Based on the information I have seen, I am satisfied the Council did make efforts to find another care agency to provide the package of care. There is evidence that on one occasion the social worker telephoned multiple providers to find one that could meet Ms X’s eligible needs.
21. On occasions a care provider told the Council it had capacity to meet Ms X’s care needs but for various reasons these never transpired into actual care being provided. Following the cancellation of the package of care in December 2021, Ms X did not receive further care until 11 October 2022, some ten months later.
22. The Council had a duty to meet Ms X’s eligible care needs and while it made efforts to find an alternative provider its failure to do this meant Ms X did not receive any care for 10 months. This is service failure. I consider that Ms X’s actions contributed in part to this failure. It appears there were options available that were probably suitable, such as continuing with the existing provider, but Ms X was entitled to make her opinions known and refuse to continue to use a particular provider.
23. I note that after October 2022 it was entirely Ms X’s choice to end the package of care due to the cost. While I find no fault in the Council closing her case after she chose not to pay for the care once the correct assessment was carried out, there was fault in respect of the financial assessment. A social worker told Ms X that her charge would be nil, the same it was when she previously received a package of care. This was incorrect and meant Ms X was not provided with the full information before the care package began. Although the Council did completed the financial assessment which reduced the charge and offered to look further at the costs if she provided her bank statement, Ms X decided it was too expensive and cancelled the service.
24. Ms X also complained about the failure to complete a safeguarding referral. The Council says the referral was received but did not meet the threshold for further action because the lack of care was as a result of Ms X cancelling the package of care and the provider could have provided other carers. It seems to me that even if this had been investigated further, the outcome would not have been different. The Council always had a duty to meet Ms X’s care needs and as explained above it made efforts to do this. I am therefore not persuaded that even if there was fault in the safeguarding process that this change the outcome or caused a significant enough personal injustice to Ms X to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Agreed action

25. To remedy the injustice caused by the fault identified above the Council will, within one month of my final decision, take the following action:
• Apologise to Ms X;
• Make Ms X a symbolic payment of £500 to recognise the lost service between December 2021 and October 2022; and
• Waive any care fees in respect of the care provided from October 2022 until cancelled by Ms X.
26. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault for the reasons explained in this statement. The Council has agreed to implement the actions I have recommended. These appropriately remedy any injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman