Summary: Mr Y complains about several aspects of the Council’s involvement in meeting his care, support and accommodation needs, including the actions of the allocated social worker at the time. We found there was delay in securing advocacy services and delays in providing some minor adaptations to Mr Y’s new property. The Council has agreed to complete the remedial actions listed at the end of this statement. There is no fault in the other parts of the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the following:
1. A social worker failed to submit an agreed referral for advocacy support in 2022/23.
2. The social worker lied to say Mr Y had discharged himself from hospital, which in turn prevented Mr Y from getting the Occupational Therapy (OT) he needed.
3. The care provider lied about the level of care Mr Y received on the day he was discharged from hospital.
4. The social worker contacted Mr Y’s GP without permission and made an unnecessary referral to the Mental Health team.
5. The social worker provided false information about a provider of independent living, incorrectly stating they did not accept wheelchair users.
6. The social worker provided false information about Mr Y and made discriminatory comments about his abilities.
7. The social worker downplayed Mr Y’s health needs, which affected his access to suitable accommodation.
8. The Council significantly delayed arranging carers to support Mr Y to access the community, therefore isolating him.
9. The Council failed to act on a safeguarding referral made in December 2022/January 2023 after Mr Y was discharged from hospital with no package of care. Two further referrals made by carers in mid-2023 were also not addressed.
10. The Council failed to support Mr Y to move to suitable accommodation.
11. When Mr Y moved areas, he transferred to a new care company and the social worker lied about Mr Y’s level of care needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have exercised discretion to investigate matters dating back to January 2023 as Mr Y has explained why he could not complain sooner. I have not investigated what happened after September 2025 because this is when Mr Y approached the LGSCO. Anything which happened after then is premature for us to consider as part of this investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr Y, his advocate and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr Y, his advocate and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Complaint a)

8. Mr Y complains about delays in receiving advocacy support. The Council’s case notes show a social worker made an advocacy referral on 28 February 2023 for “support with correspondence, managing appointment letters and writing letters in relation to [Mr Y’s] current circumstances and health conditions”.
9. The advocacy service responded on 31 July 2023 to confirm the referral was awaiting allocation but that “… we currently have a significant waiting list in North Yorkshire for generic advocacy”.
10. On 15 February 2024 the advocacy service emailed the social worker to say it had tried to contact Mr Y without success and wanted to check whether he still required advocacy support.
11. Mr Y contacted the Council on 3 July 2024 to confirm, “the advocacy lady just contacted me and arranged to help me again with my complaint letter”.
12. The records show there was delay caused by a lack of services, and therefore a service failure, for one year between February 2023 and February 2024. Due a lack of availability, Mr Y did not receive the advocacy support he needed and was entitled to. To remedy the injustice caused by this service failure, the Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment of £100.

Complaints b) and c)

13. The Council’s records show that Mr Y was in hospital several times throughout 2023, which I will summarise in this section.
• On 20 January 2023 Mr Y contacted the Council to advise he was in hospital. The Council advised Mr Y to tell staff on the ward to put through an assessment before arranging his discharge. Mr Y’s social worker called the hospital on 27 February 2023 to discuss the discharge arrangements, but the hospital advised that Mr Y was no longer a patient there. Following this, Mr Y’s care provider told the Council it had received a phone call at 1am two days before to say that Mr Y was on his way home from hospital.
• On 1 March 2023 Mr Y told his social worker that he was back in hospital. The following day, Mr Y’s care provider called the Council to say that Mr Y was discharged from hospital at midnight and that he suffered a fall when we went out to the library during the early hours of the morning. Paramedics transported Mr Y back home and decided that he did not need to go to hospital.
• On 9 March 2023 the warden from Mr Y’s accommodation provider contacted the Council to say that Mr Y went back into hospital on 8 March after falling from his wheelchair but that he was back home today. The warden expressed concern that Mr Y’s accommodation was unsuitable and that he needed more support. The social worker called Mr Y and completed an application for extra care housing.
• On 11 April 2023 Mr Y’s social worker received a call from a hospital discharge team to say that Mr Y was in hospital and ready to be discharged home. The hospital said Mr Y had raised concerns about the suitability of his home and the social worker explained they were assisting Mr Y with an application for extra care housing. Following this, the hospital decided to transfer Mr Y to a different hospital. The second hospital discharged Mr Y on 12 April 2023 and relayed this decision to the social worker. The social worker contacted Mr Y and his care provider and arranged for his care calls to restart from teatime.
• On 11 September 2023 Mr Y contacted the Council to advise that he was back in hospital. He said that he did not want to go home and would refuse to go home if discharged. Mr Y’s social worker called the hospital on 14 September 2023 and received information that Mr Y was waiting for some tests. The following day, the social worker called the hospital again and received information that the tests did not show any concerns. Mr Y remained in hospital until 19 September 2023. Due to concerns about the suitability of his accommodation, the social worker made a referral for an OT assessment.
14. The LGSCO can only make recommendations where it finds that injustice has been caused by fault. Based on the evidence available, my view is that there was no fault in how the Council managed Mr Y’s hospital discharges during the period in question. The records do not indicate any fault in the Council’s care planning. On each discharge from hospital, the records show that Mr Y’s social worker contacted the care provider to ensure Mr Y’s care package restarted without any break in service.
15. There is also no evidence that any fault by the Council affected Mr Y’s access to Occupational Therapy (OT) services. When concerns were raised by Mr Y and hospital staff about the suitability of his accommodation, the social worker made a referral to the OT team in September 2023. The evidence does not therefore show any fault by the Council in this matter.

Complaint d)

16. A conversation record from April 2022 contains a section titled: “Information Sharing”, where Mr Y states “Yes” to consenting to share information between health and social care professionals. This is also echoed in the ‘Consent to Information Sharing’ entry dated 30 March 2022, marked “Consent is Granted.”
17. The Council’s records show it contacted Mr Y’s GP surgery on 27 February 2023 to relay concerns about Mr Y’s wellbeing. Earlier that day, Mr Y had told his social worker “… he feels like giving up and feels suicidal”.
18. The case records show that although Mr Y had previously given consent for the Council to share information with health and social care professionals, this later changed. During a visit in September 2023, Mr Y told the OT that he did not want his GP to be contacted without his permission. This instruction was recorded in the notes. On 8 February 2024 the Council also entered a case note which listed Mr Y’s diagnoses health conditions and noted, "[Mr Y] has asked that anyone in social care to not contact his GP without checking with him first”.
19. In my view, and based on the evidence seen, there is no fault here. The social worker’s contact with Mr Y’s GP was based on a genuine safeguarding concern and happened before Mr Y withdrew his consent for information sharing.

Complaints e) f) and g)

20. The LGSCO makes decisions on the balance of probabilities and based on the available records. I have therefore considered the relevant case notes, visit notes, OT assessments, emails, and telephone records when considering this part of Mr Y’s complaint.
21. The records show no evidence that the social worker or any other Council officer made discriminatory comments about Mr Y or his disabilities. There is also no indication that staff minimised or “downplayed” his needs or lied about the status of an accommodation provider. Across the records, Council staff consistently:
1. Record Mr Y’s views about his health, pain, mobility, and anxiety.
2. Note his concerns about housing, safety, carers, and access issues.
3. Escalate issues to housing, OT, telecare, wheelchair services, or mental health teams.
4. Acknowledge Mr Y’s feelings, worries, and requests.
5. Record increases to care, requests for adaptations, safeguarding concerns raised by others, and the growing complexity of his needs.
22. On some occasions, the social worker clarified the limits of their role. In my view, these are appropriate explanations regarding their inability to provide medical advice. The comments are not discriminatory and do not minimise Mr Y’s needs. To the contrary, the records show staff actively sought additional support and equipment for Mr Y when needed.

Complaint h)

23. I have considered the assessments and support plans for the period in question to see how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s need to have help when accessing the community.
24. The records show the Council consistently recognised Mr Y’s eligible need for support to access the community, and it attempted to meet this need through funded social support hours and adjustments to his care package.
25. Each assessment identifies that Mr Y cannot access the community independently due to his severe mobility impairments and use of a wheelchair. This causes Mr Y to be socially isolated and have low mood and anxiety. Across the support plans, the Council includes regular weekly hours of support for accessing the community. When living in his previous property, Mr Y received funding for three hours of community time each week to go out for coffee, to shops or run errands.
26. Following his discharge from hospital in late 2023, and a subsequent move to different accommodation, the Council increased the hours from three to nine and a half. The Council labelled those hours as “social time” or “practical support” to access appointments, go to the shops or attend social activities.
27. Although Mr Y had funded support to access the community, the records show that he sometimes struggled to leave the house when living in his previous accommodation. Mr Y reported that the property was not wheelchair accessible and this limited his time outside. When he moved, Mr Y could exit the new property but struggled to re-enter safely until the installation of a new ramp. I will deal with this in my findings for complaint j.
28. In my view, and based on the evidence seen, I find no fault with the Council. There is no evidence to show the Council delayed in meeting Mr Y’s eligible social care needs which in turn limited his access to the community.

Complaint i)

29. In April 2023 the Council received a referral after Mr Y reported that some money had gone missing from his room. A social worker spoke with Mr Y to understand what had happened and checked that he felt safe. Mr Y shared that he suspected one particular care worker and that other small items had also gone missing.
30. The care agency carried out its own internal investigation. They identified concerns about a member of staff and dismissed that worker. They also changed key‑safe codes and notified the appropriate barring authorities. Mr Y told the Council that he felt safer once the worker had left and that he was happy for the safeguarding process to close.
31. Because the care provider had already taken action to remove the risk, the Council decided that no further safeguarding investigation under Section 42 was needed. The case was then closed. In my view, and based on the records seen, there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s approach here.
32. In June 2025 the Council received a safeguarding referral from an ambulance service. This was after Mr Y expressed worries about his medical care while travelling to an appointment. The safeguarding officer visited Mr Y at home and spent time discussing his concerns. Mr Y explained that he believed his medical needs had not been properly investigated and that his records were inaccurate.
33. The Council investigated the concerns and spoke with NHS safeguarding colleagues. They agreed that the issues related to dissatisfaction with healthcare, rather than abuse or neglect by someone responsible for Mr Y’s social care. There was no indication of an immediate safety risk. Furthermore, Mr Y had full capacity and there was no identifiable person causing harm.
34. Because of this, the Council decided the referral did not meet the criteria for a formal safeguarding enquiry. Instead, it provided Mr Y with information about how to pursue complaints through the NHS. The Council closed the case once it had completed the process of providing advice. In my view, and based on the records seen, there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s approach here.

Complaint j) and k)

35. In September 2023 the Council’s records show an OT supported Mr Y to find suitable housing because he felt trapped in his property. An OT assessed two potential properties with Mr Y. One house needed major accessibility adaptations, while another property was fully accessible. Mr Y chose to remain in his current home, and work began in mid‑October 2023 to plan the required adaptations.
36. During these discussions, Mr Y told the OT that he was unhappy living at the property and asked about alternative housing options. Because he was eligible for Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) funding and had indicated a wish to move properties, major adaptations could not continue at the time. The OT instead focused on resolving immediate access issues and providing equipment to keep Mr Y safe and maintain accessibility.
37. Initially, a carpet fitter resolved issues with a door threshold and Mr Y said he could access the property. However, in January 2024, Mr Y reported new access problems. The OT ordered a temporary ramp, but its delivery was significantly delayed. When the ramp arrived, it was unsuitable and had to be returned before the OT could reassess. To avoid further delays, the OT requested removal of the front door and threshold to enable level access, but this could not be funded from the minor adaptations budget. As a temporary measure, the OT advised Mr Y to use his attendant‑propelled wheelchair for access and to liaise with the relevant wheelchair service about adjustments to his powered wheelchair.
38. In February 2024, Mr Y again reported difficulties accessing his home. The OT assessed the property and noted that Mr Y was no longer pursuing rehousing, and the OT therefore requested major adaptations for improved access, changes to doorways and thresholds, and other structural work. The OT is currently working with the Home Improvement Agency to progress the adaptations.
39. There is no fault in the overall way the Council has supported Mr Y to pursue new accommodation. Nor is there any evidence the social worker lied about Mr Y’s needs when he moved areas. The Council has accepted there was some delay in installing a ramp which Mr Y needed to safely exit and enter his property, which caused inconvenience to Mr Y. The Council will remedy the injustice caused by this delay with an apology and a symbolic payment of £150.

Back to top

Action

40. Within four weeks of our final decision, the Council will provide evidence to show it has:
• Apologised to Mr Y for the fault and service failure identified in this decision statement. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Made a symbolic distress payment of £250 to Mr Y. This is in recognition of the injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman