Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to safeguard her son Mr Y from financial abuse. The Council commissioned care provider failed to update Miss X on the outcome of a safeguarding investigation. There was no fault in the way the Council investigated the safeguarding concern. Miss X also complained the Council commissioned care provider repeatedly cancelled hours and the Council failed to have sufficient oversight of this. There was fault in the care provider’s actions. The Council monitored this but failed to follow this up with service users. This was fault. The faults caused Miss X frustration and uncertainty. To remedy that injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and issue a reminder to staff.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to safeguard her adult son Mr Y from financial abuse. She says his money went missing when he was supported by the Council commissioned care provider and the Council had not ensured a finance plan was in place.
2. Miss X also complains the care provider repeatedly cancelled support hours due to short staff, and the Council has not had proper oversight of this. She says she has had to cover a significant amount of support hours meaning she has not had the breaks she should have from her caring role.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended)
5. 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

6. I have considered the information provided by Miss X and discussed the complaint with her on the telephone.
7. I have considered the information provided by the Council in response to my enquiries and the relevant law and guidance.
8. I gave Miss X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments I received in reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Safeguarding

9. A council must make enquiries if it thinks a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has care and support needs which mean the person cannot protect themselves. An enquiry is the action taken by a council in response to a concern about abuse or neglect. An enquiry could range from a conversation with the person who is the subject of the concern, to a more formal multi-agency arrangement. A council must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse. (section 42, Care Act 2014)

Care Plan

10. The Care Act 2014 gives councils 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 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. When preparing a care and support plan the council must involve any carer the adult has. The support plan must include a personal budget, which is the money the council has worked out it will cost to arrange the necessary care and support for that person.

Personal Budgets

11. Everyone whose needs the council meets must receive a personal budget as part of the care and support plan. The personal budget gives the person clear information about the money allocated to meet the needs identified in the assessment and recorded in the plan. The council should share an indicative amount with the person, and anybody else involved, at the start of care and support planning. It should confirm the final amount of the personal budget through this process. The detail of how the person will use their personal budget will be in the care and support plan. The personal budget must always be enough to meet the person’s care and support needs.
12. There are three main ways a personal budget can be administered:
• as a managed account held by the council with support provided in line with the person’s wishes;
• as a managed account held by a third party (often called an individual service fund or ISF) with support provided in line with the person’s wishes; or
• as a direct payment.(Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014)

Background

13. Mr Y receives support 24 hours a day. Mr Y received direct payments which he used to pay his mother, Miss X, to support him. Mr Y also received a Council commissioned care package of 40 hours a week of support from the care provider. The commissioned package consisted of one to one support, five to six days a week, which included transport. Mr Y either received support at the day centre, or one to one support to access activities in the community.
14. Mr Y’s support plan says he has no monetary understanding and needs to be fully supported with all aspects of financial management.

What happened

Safeguarding

15. When support workers took Mr Y out they took with them a folder containing Mr Y’s wallet. He was given his wallet and supported to make payments and to check change. Staff placed receipts in his wallet.
16. In April 2023 a support worker took Mr Y out to the cinema. In Mr Y’s communication book they noted Mr Y had bought chocolate but had not got a receipt as the machine was not working. Miss X was concerned as there were previous incidents where Mr Y had returned from days out with this worker with small amounts of money which were unaccounted for, with no receipt and no explanation.
17. In April 2023 the Council asked the care provider to carry out a safeguarding enquiry. The care provider responded to the Council in June 2023. It confirmed it had suspended a staff member whilst it investigated the concern.
18. In June 2023 the Council wrote to the care provider that it was satisfied the risk was reduced. However, it considered concerns still remained as the care provider had not explored the previous incidents Miss X had referred to and the care provider and had not advised it or Miss X of the outcome of its investigation. Miss X was also concerned the support worker involved was back at work. The Council said its own team would carry out a safeguarding enquiry.
19. In August 2023 the Council reviewed its internal investigation report. It found Mr Y did not have a finance plan in place. It was satisfied with the actions the care provider took in relation to the staff member and that the care provider had taken action to ensure more robust policies were in place to reduce the risk to Mr Y and other service users. It said the care provider had agreed to refund the cost of the chocolate and would implement a finance plan for Mr Y. Miss X says they never received the refund.
20. The care provider wrote to Miss X with the outcome of the safeguarding investigation. It said the staff member concerned would no longer support Mr Y and it would implement a finance plan which would be shared with the family prior to final sign off which would detail how Mr Y’s spending would be documented and accounted for. The Council wrote to the care provider closing the case, recording the outcome as risk reduced.
21. Miss X was unhappy with the outcome of the safeguarding investigation and complained to the Council.
22. Miss X raised further queries which the Council investigated at stage two of its complaints’ procedure in November 2023. It said it had considered all the information provided and was satisfied the care provider’s actions were appropriate. It had passed the information to an officer to check the care provider had followed the correct procedures when they investigated.
23. An officer visited the care provider in December 2023 and was satisfied Mr Y now had a finance plan in place.
24. Miss X raised some further concerns about the lack of a finance plan which the Council responded to in February 2024. It said, at the time of Mr Y’s review in September 2023, the social worker would have identified if any special measures were needed surrounding finance. At the point of the review this requirement was not raised so the worker relied on the fact that Mr Y had an appointee (Miss X) to raise any concerns. Miss X had done this. The care provider recognised there was not a finance plan in place and took the necessary steps to ensure one was then created. The Council had monitored this.
25. It said an officer had reviewed the initial safeguarding enquiry and outcomes. They had confirmed the care provider had completed a review of Mr Y’s expenditure to ensure it was accounted for, reviewed their policies and procedures and revisited their staff training for the management of finances for people they support.
26. Miss X has provided copies of finance plans she received in response to a subject access request. These show Mr Y had a finance plan in place in 2020 which stated Mr Y would be supported to hand over the correct amount, would receive change and receipts which would be placed back in his wallet and that staff would support him to check the change. The care provider reviewed the plan in June 2023 and then in January 2024 to be more specific including getting receipts and writing in the communications book if receipts were not available, stating what was bought, the cost and where it was purchased.

Hours of support

27. In February 2023 Mr Y’s sister contacted the Council as there had been several occasions when the care provider had cancelled Mr Y’s support, often at the last minute, due to staff shortages. Miss X also contacted the care provider to advise that she was unwilling to provide cover for the care provider when it cancelled support as it disrupted hers and Mr Y’s routine. The care provider cancelled a day’s support in February 2023 and a day’s support in March 2023. On another day in March the care provider ended Mr Y’s session early due to staff shortages.
28. In March 2023 the Council’s Quality Monitoring Team visited the care provider regarding concerns around cancelled support. It asked for details of all cancellations from the last three months, told the care provider it was permitted to use agency staff if required and that it needed to give serious consideration to contingency planning around staffing to mitigate the risk of further cancellations. It said it would notify the Council’s commissioning team of the care provider’s failure to notify the Council of cancellations and said that the care provider must notify commissioning of all future cancellations.
29. In May 2023 the care provider notified Miss X that it was unable to collect or drop off Mr Y on two dates. There was also one date where it did not have enough staff to support Mr Y.
30. In early June 2023 the care provider told Miss X it was very short of staff to support Mr Y although it was recruiting. There were two dates it could not support Mr Y and one date where he needed dropping off and collecting.
31. In June 2023 the Council’s Quality Monitoring Team carried out a further monitoring visit. It noted the care provider was now using agency staff and bank staff if required and there had been an improvement in service delivery.
32. In September 2023 the care provider wrote to Miss X to advise her the day center would be closing in November 2023 as it was no longer financially viable to run the service. During September Mr Y’s Council worker carried out a care and support plan review. As part of the process they became aware that the care provider was still cancelling support or reducing Mr Y’s hours of support. The worker asked the care provider to keep Miss X updated when it had capacity issues.
33. In early October 2023 the Council wrote to Miss X about the expected closure of the centre. It said its focus would be on finding alternative provision for Mr Y and named an allocated worker to support him with this. During October the Council’s Quality Monitoring Team met with the provider to discuss how it could meet its contract obligations. It noted the care provider had also failed to notify the Council when it had failed to deliver services. The care provider had lost several key staff and some of the people it supported could not be supported by agency staff so it had to cancel care. The Council asked it to look at the potential to redeploy staff from other areas.
34. Later in October the care provider advised Miss X that it had reached agreement with the Council to continue to provide support for another six months.
35. Miss X contacted the care provider and Council in early November. She said the day centre had ongoing staff shortages and continued to cancel or reduce Mr Y’s sessions at very short notice including that day. She asked if the care provider would be able to provide Mr Y’s full 40 contracted hours during the extension period. Miss X asked the Council to contact her to discuss alternative provision for Mr Y.
36. In mid November the care provider wrote to Miss X to advise it had lost some staff members and was using agency staff to cover. However due to the complex needs of some of the people attending the day centre, agency staff could not meet their needs so sessions would be cancelled. In November there were three days it could not support Mr Y and one day when he was dropped off an hour early. The Council arranged for two care providers to assess Mr Y in November 2023. The Council says Miss X declined their services in January 2024. Miss X says this was because the care workers were not suitably experienced.
37. Miss X complained to the Council that it had failed to act when the care provider had repeatedly cancelled sessions. As a result she was having to cover sessions and missing her time off.
38. The Council responded in December 2023. It said the payments team were aware of when Mr Y attended. It said it had tried to provide additional cover but this had been a challenge. It said it had agreed to pay Miss X for the additional hours when Mr Y had not attended the day centre and she had to cover at short notice. It said it appeared the care provider had not always shared the dates in advance when it could not support Mr Y and it had raised this with the care provider. It said it was actively working to find alternative support for Mr Y.
39. The Council said it was not aware of the care provider not being able to provide support in the past. As the care provider was withdrawing its support it had not had the opportunity to carry out any quality investigations but was focusing on finding alternative support for Mr Y.
40. The Council’s records show it contacted nine alternative care providers in December 2023. One had capacity but was refused by the family. It contacted eight more in January 2024. Two had capacity but the Council says they were refused by Miss X as they were not autism specialists.
41. Miss X raised some further queries and the Council responded at stage two of its complaints procedure in February 2024. The Council confirmed it was not aware of further cancellations following its monitoring visits until Miss X informed it in late 2023. It said it had worked closely with the care provider and asked that it was informed immediately the care provider cancelled further sessions. It said it acknowledged the need to follow up with families after monitoring visits to establish if there were any issues or concerns. It said it had contacted five specialist providers but they were unable to support Mr Y. It had contacted five more providers and had also offered a direct payment but Miss X had turned this down. It said some of the providers were unable to provide one to one support or could not offer Saturday support or support in the community as requested.
42. The Council apologised for the distress and frustration caused to Miss X by the care provider cancelling and withdrawing support. It acknowledged Miss X had provided additional support at short notice.
43. The Council identified an alternative care provider in February 2024 but it later retracted its offer.
44. In February 2024 there were ten days when the care provider could not offer support to Mr Y. It wrote to Miss X later that month to advise the day centre would close in April 2024. Miss X was unhappy that the care provider had not considered identifying agency/bank staff to shadow regular staff to provide cover. The care provider responded that Mr Y would not interact with the agency and bank staff they had when they tried to engage with him and agency staff were unable to drive.
45. The care provider cancelled four sessions in April 2024 and stopped supporting Mr Y mid April. The Council contacted three providers and arranged transition days with one. The family cancelled these as they considered the care provider could not provide community support at the required times/duration.
46. In May 2024 the Council identified an alternative care provider. It is currently providing Mr Y with 12 hours of support, in two sessions. In the interim the Council has increased Miss X’s paid hours of support.

Findings

Safeguarding

47. When Miss X raised a safeguarding concern, the Council asked its commissioned care provider to investigate. It was entitled to do this. At the time the care provider suspended the staff member concerned which reduced the risk to Mr Y. However, the care provider did not provide the Council or Miss X with details of the outcome of its investigation. This was fault and caused Miss X frustration and uncertainty over what action had been taken.
48. The Council was not satisfied the concern was properly investigated and so undertook its own safeguarding enquiry. It found the care provider had taken appropriate action in relation to the staff member concerned and that Mr Y did not have a finance plan in place which the care provider then agreed to do. It was satisfied the risk to Mr Y and other users was reduced and updated Miss X with the outcome. The Council properly investigated the concern so was not at fault. It was for the care provider to decide what action to take regarding the staff member in line with its own personnel policies and procedures.
49. Following a subject access request Miss X established Mr Y had a finance plan in 2020. This is not referenced in either the care provider’s or Council’s safeguarding investigations. So, although one may have existed it appears staff were not aware of it at the time. This was fault. Following the safeguarding investigation, the care provider agreed to produce a finance plan, which it did. However, there is no evidence it agreed this with Miss X. The care provider therefore did not fully comply with the recommendation it agreed following the safeguarding investigation. This caused Miss X frustration.

Hours of support

50. When the Council first had concerns about the care provider cancelling care hours, it carried out monitoring visits. It required the care provider to tell it if it cancelled further support hours. The Council carried out a follow up visit and was satisfied the situation had improved. However, as the Council acknowledged in its complaint response, it did not seek any feedback from service users to establish if further cancellations had occurred. This was fault and meant the Council was not aware the cancellations were continuing until Miss X raised this in late 2023. By this time the care provider had given notice to the Council so it decided not to do any further monitoring visits but to concentrate on finding alternative providers for service users. That was a decision the Council was entitled to make.
51. When the care provider cancelled care hours Miss X had no alternative but to support Mr Y. This caused her frustration and meant she did not get respite from her caring role. However, she was paid for the support she provided.
52. Mr Y was not caused a significant injustice as his care needs were met either through the care provider or by Miss X. He had sufficient direct payments to cover the extra hours of work and there is no evidence he was left short of funds because of this.
53. The care provider no longer operates in the Council’s area so there is nothing more I can achieve by investigating its actions further.
54. The records show the Council has contacted a number of care providers to fulfil Mr Y’s care package. Miss X has sought to find a package which mirrored that previously provided but that is not possible. The Council has offered alternatives and it is open to Miss X to try these.

Back to top

Agreed action

55. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Miss X for the frustration she was caused by the Council commissioned care provider’s delay in providing her with the outcome of the safeguarding investigation and for the frustration and additional distress caused by the cancelled care visits.
2. Remind its Quality Monitoring Team to follow up with service users to assure itself that that issues with care providers have been resolved following monitoring visits.
56. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

57. I have completed my investigation. There was evidence of fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman