Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Kent County Council (10 012 742)

Category : Adult care services > Transition from childrens services

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 23 Jul 2012

Summary

Kent County Council’s failures meant that a young woman with learning disabilities did not receive the services that she needed for a year.

The complaint

The Ombudsman said: “The Council’s failure to complete an assessment before the young woman was 18 caused her the injustice of losing services she was assessed as needing. The support plan that was eventually produced did not include services to meet these needs.” In addition, the Council’s poor communication led to uncertainty, confusion and frustration for the young woman and her family, and she was denied a direct payment and the choice to arrange her own respite care.

Miss B was a young woman with learning disabilities attending college. Her mother contacted the Council in good time to begin planning what services she would have once she was 18. A care manager should have been involved as soon as Miss B was 17½, but this did not happen until after she was 18. The care manager assessed Miss B’s needs as serious enough to be eligible for services, and to include opportunities to socialise during evenings and weekends. There was a delay in producing a support plan and, when it was eventually produced, it did not include all Miss B’s eligible needs.

Miss B’s mother was not offered a carer’s assessment, although she was providing a substantial amount of care for her daughter. The Council did not offer a service that could provide her with a break from her caring responsibilities until the Head of Service responded to her complaint. That service – respite care for Miss B only in one of the Council’s own residential homes – did not comply with the legal requirement to offer a direct payment. The internal Council guidance issued to care managers in July 2010 restricting respite care to the Council’s own residential care homes did not comply with the law.

The Ombudsman found maladministration by the Council in:

  • not assessing Miss B until four months after she was 18
  • not producing a support plan for another four months
  • not including Miss B’s assessed needs that were eligible for services in that support plan
  • poor and confusing communication with Miss B and her family
  • not offering Miss B’s mother a carer’s assessment
  • not offering Miss B direct payments so she could arrange her own care, and
  • restricting respite care for Miss B to its own residential care homes.

Recommendations

The Council’s officers agreed to remedy the injustice caused to Miss B and her family. It will pay the value of the services Miss B lost between becoming 18 and them eventually being provided and £250 to reflect her mother’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. It will also amend the form it uses for support plans and tell everyone entitled to respite care of their right to have direct payments.

In 2009 the previous Ombudsman issued a report finding maladministration by the Council in having a policy of restricting respite care for disabled children to its own residential homes. The Ombudsman said: “I am surprised and disappointed to find the maladministration recurring in services for adults with a learning disability. I have issued a report* finding maladministration by the Council when it tried to limit temporary residential care for an elderly woman to its own homes or ‘pre-purchased’ beds in private homes. I appreciate the Council’s need to use its resources as effectively as possible but that cannot be at the expense of peoples’ right to the choice and flexibility that direct payments give.”

LGO satisfied with Council's response: 9 October 2012

Print this page