Summary: Miss B complained about the time taken by the Council to complete her care needs assessment and increase the support she needed. We find some fault by the Council during the process which caused delay, but we do not consider the Council was responsible for all the delay. The Council has agreed to pay Miss B £500 for the distress caused and to pay £200 for the interest she paid for buying specialist equipment on her credit card.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains that Northamptonshire County Council (the Council) has:
• delayed excessively in completing a care needs assessment and support plan;
• failed to provide adequate support since the process started in March 2019;
• failed to provide a reliable contact person in the Council to respond to queries and requests for information or services;
• failed to allocate a manager to her case to ensure it is progressed;
• failed to explain the process to her or the reasons for the delay in completion;
• failed to understand the nature of her disability and the impact it has on her day to day life; and
• failed to respect her right to live an independent life or treat her with dignity.
2. This caused her significant distress over a long period.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

5. 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. Miss B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Miss B is visually impaired and has been receiving a direct payment to support her care needs for some time. In 2018 she was receiving £123 a week for 12 hours of personal assistant support. She moved to a new house in July 2018 and experienced a hate crime. She says she contacted the Council in July 2018 to request more support as she was very isolated. The Council has a first record of contact at the end of August 2018. It referred her case to the physical disabilities team for a review.
7. In November 2018 the Council allocated a social worker to her case to carry out a review of her needs. She has also had support from a visual impairment officer (Officer Z) at the Council since December 2018. Officer Z carried out an assessment concluding that Miss B was very anxious and isolated:

She is a private person and very sensitive about the support she receives. She is extremely wary of who she shares information with, and this sometimes comes across as being defensive. Miss B said it takes her time to build up trust with people who are working with her and she is wary of professionals and other organisations as she feels these have not supported her sufficiently in the past.

8. Officer Z noted that a lack of formal regular support was adding to Miss B’s isolation and vulnerability and impacting on her mental health. Officer Z agreed to support Miss B at the assessment and review meeting. Miss B did not feel able to arrange the meeting until after Christmas. Unfortunately, due to a family bereavement Miss B could not meet the social worker until 12 March 2019.
9. Following the meeting Miss B provided information about some equipment she needed to help her read printed material. The social worker said he would ask his manager about financial support for this. Miss B emailed the social worker in April 2019 complaining that he was taking too long, had not been in contact with her and did not understand her needs properly.
10. The social worker telephoned Miss B on 18 April 2019 to discuss the assessment and in particular the tasks that her personal assistants carried out for her. Miss B did not wish to share this information and said the social worker had taken too long to do the assessment. She also said he had given her insufficient notice of his call. At this point the Council was looking to increase the personal budget to £500 per week. Miss B says she was not aware of this fact: she says if the assessment and proposed budget had been read to her she may well have reacted differently.
11. The social worker’s line manager (LM) then took over the case. On 29 April 2019 she contacted Officer Z and asked for a copy of her specialist assessment. LM’s notes say that Officer Z agreed to send the assessment by email. Officer Z’s notes say she first needed to obtain Miss B’s consent to share the information. Miss B wanted to see it first before she would give her consent and Officer Z needed to get her manager’s approval to share the document with all parties.
12. LM also asked Officer Z to explore the possibility of grant funding for the required equipment. Officer Z replied the same day with information showing that for a particular grant the Council had to show it had refused to fund the equipment. LM noted that the request would have to go to panel for funding approval once the care and support plan had been completed.
13. On 20 May 2019 LM called Miss B to get her consent to share the specialist assessment with the social worker. Miss B said she had lost trust in the social worker and did not wish to give her consent. Miss B then complained that LM was harassing her to provide consent.

Complaint

14. A complaints officer (CO) contacted Miss B in early June to discuss the complaints. She also spoke to Officer Z and confirmed to both her and Miss B, that a signed consent form was required from Miss B to confirm she was happy for Officer Z to contribute to the complaint process. Miss B was unhappy with this: she said it was obvious she wanted Officer Z involved and she had signed forms before. CO repeated that a signed form was necessary.
15. At the end of June 2019 Miss B complained that the consent form was not accessible for her. She required it electronically and would reply by email. CO confirmed this would be a reasonable adjustment. CO arranged for an accessible consent form to be sent to Miss B on 2 July 2019. Miss B returned the signed form with the help of Officer Z on 15 August 2019.
16. On 21 August 2019 CO telephoned Miss B to confirm that a new social worker had been allocated to her case and work had begun on combining the specialist assessment. They discussed how to arrange a meeting with the new social worker and Officer Z.
17. The Council also sent its complaint response to Miss B. It explained that it had allocated a new worker to her case and the assessment could now be progressed. It apologised if it had not been made clear to Miss B at an earlier point that Officer Z needed a signed consent form to pass on information about Miss B to the social worker.
18. The social worker called Miss B on 4 September 2019 to introduce herself. She said she was writing up the assessment and would then arrange to meet with her and Officer Z. Miss B complained in mid-September that she had not heard anything. The social worker agreed with Officer Z and Miss B to visit on 30 September 2019.
19. At the meeting Miss B and Officer Z highlighted some inaccuracies in the original assessment which they corrected. A further meeting to finish it off was arranged for 9 October 2019. The Council was still looking at a budget of around £500 per week. Miss B said she had purchased the equipment to help her read at a cost of £3000 and wished for the direct payments to continue.
20. On 9 October 2019 the social worker explained she needed information from the GP and then she would be able to complete the assessment. She also helped Miss B contact care providers for cover the following week when her personal assistant was on holiday and made a referral to an advocacy service.
21. On 21 October 2019 Miss B said she was happy with the assessment which the social worker had read to her. On 23 October 2019 the Council agreed to fund an additional 7.5 hours of interim support until the assessment was completed. Miss B used this to employ a care agency to assist her with cleaning, paperwork, going outside and other tasks.
22. Miss B sent several emails with further information about the difficulties she experienced and the impact on her mental health. She asked for it to be included in the assessment. She also complained that she was unable to get in touch with her social worker as she only worked part-time and no manager was available.
23. In November she requested no email contact from the Council, noted she had received no help with equipment to help her and informed the Council she was due to have another operation which may take away her remaining sight. She also requested an increase to 8 hours a week interim support and a change to the times.
24. She spoke to the social worker who advised her to contact the duty worker after her operation if she needed extra help. The social worker said the assessment was almost ready to share with her, but Miss B did not wish to make an appointment until after the operation. The social worker emailed Miss B with an overview assessment and arranged to meet on 4 December 2019. She said the Council had not agreed the extra hours at this time as it wanted to focus on completing the assessment and getting the right amount of hours in place.
25. On 4 December 2019 the care agency informed the Council it was giving notice to terminate the support to Miss B. The Council asked it to consider a longer notice period so as not to leave Miss B without care over Christmas but the agency refused. It said it would finish on 18 December 2019.
26. The social worker asked the care agency to work for a longer notice period but it refused to do so. It said that the carers were not prepared to clean up dog mess or walk the dogs and felt that supporting Miss B in an environment with approximately ten dogs required staff to change clothing. It also said these activities did not form part of the existing or interim care plan. The agency had not had prior warning of the number of dogs in Miss B’s property but were aware that she had a guide dog and retained a retired guide dog.
27. Miss B spoke to the social worker on 11 December 2019, unhappy that she had not heard anything about the care arrangements. She also said she was unhappy with the assessment and it needed more information. She asked if she could increase her own direct payments to employ her own carer privately. The social worker said she would discuss this with her manager and get back to her.
28. Miss B made a further complaint about the failure to find her alternative support CO contacted Miss B to discuss and assured her the Council was making every effort to find her some support.
29. The Council contacted a number of care agencies directly to see if they could provide care for Miss B. Two expressed an interest and visited Miss B to assess. On 20 December 2019 one of these declined saying its staff could not transport dogs in their vehicles. They offered to support Miss B on public transport but Miss B declined this.
30. On 24 December 2019 after discussion with Miss B the Council agreed to increase her direct payments by 7.5 hours at a higher rate of £15 an hour for the next four weeks.
31. On 29 December 2019 Miss B made a further complaint to the Council saying she had been forced into accepting the direct payment, but this had put pressure on her to try and persuade her cleaner to do extra care. Her cleaner was going into hospital on 9 until 20 January 2020. Mis B said she had always advised the Council that she needed support from at least two other people in addition to her cleaner through a mixture of agency and PA support.
32. She said the Council had disclosed the agency would not transport her guide dog and this was discrimination. She said the Council had not made sufficient effort to find an alternative care agency and had ignored her since 2018. She was in desperate need of more support and was constantly having accidents due to her visual impairment.
33. The social worker and Officer Z visited Miss B on 8 January 2020 to discuss the assessment. Miss B agreed to this. The social worker continued to look for suitable care agencies.
34. After further information from Miss B in early February 2020, the Council agreed to fund 30 hours per week at £16 per hour. It also agreed to fund the equipment Miss B had bought, alongside another item and was considering the issue of interest on her credit card. The care and support plan was approved on 4 March 2020.

Analysis

delayed excessively in completing a care needs assessment and support plan

35. There was some delay after Miss B’s initial request for a review in August 2018. The Council took two and a half months to allocate a social worker to her case. I consider the case should have been allocated within a month to six weeks.
36. The delay between the initial referral in November 2018 and the first meeting in March 2019 was primarily due to Miss B’s request and circumstances: initially she had too many commitments prior to Christmas and then due to a family bereavement was unable to make an arrangement until 12 March 2019. The Council was not at fault here.
37. The first social worker took a month to draw up the assessment. This was not excessive. Before he could finalise this, Miss B complained about him and requested a new worker. However, I consider the social worker should have read the assessment and proposed budget to Miss B at an earlier point, which may have helped Miss B understand the situation better.
38. The line manager then took over the case at the end of April 2019 and tried to progress matters by obtaining information from Officer Z. The issue of consent then delayed any substantive progress until August 2019. Miss B contributed to this initially by refusing to give her consent and complaining about the line manager. However, I consider the Council should have obtained the specialist visual assessment from Officer Z at the start of the assessment process and resolved the consent issue much sooner, before Miss B’s trust in the process broke down. This may well have speeded up the process significantly.
39. I cannot identify any unreasonable delay in the initial period after the second social worker took over in August 2019 and restarted the process. She visited Miss B within a month and had almost completed the assessment within a further month, by 23 October 2019. Miss B then requested some further information be included but her operation in November caused a slight delay.
40. By the beginning of December the assessment was complete but the situation was overtaken by the withdrawal of the care agency at short notice and the difficulty in finding a replacement. Miss B also said at this point she was unhappy with the assessment and wanted more information included. Miss B agreed the assessment in early January 2020 and it was approved in February 2020, with the support plan following in early March 2020. Given the delays in the previous year I consider this process could have been completed a couple of months earlier and should not have been side-lined by the search to find replacement carers just before Christmas.

failed to provide adequate support since the process started in March 2019

Increase in hours

41. Prior to March 2019 Miss B had been receiving 12 hours support per week at approximately £10.50 an hour. She evidently needed more. From the 24 October 2019 she received an additional 7.5 hours at £15 an hour and when the assessment process was completed, she received 30 hours a week at £16 an hour.
42. It is clear it has taken some time to complete the assessment and this has meant Miss B has been without the extra support she needs. However, as I have explained above, I do not consider the delay was entirely due to the Council. The situation could have been improved at the beginning of the process by obtaining all the relevant information including the consent form much sooner. But some of the delay was due to Miss B making complaints, taking time to return information, changing her mind over the content of the assessments and her operation.

Equipment

43. One of the consequences of the delay was the failure to progress funding of the equipment. Miss B raised this in March 2019 and the Council said it would consider funding sources. Officer Z and LM discussed it in May 2019 but no further action was taken. Miss B says she purchased the equipment in March 2019 using her credit card and has incurred interest. She said as part of the assessment process October 2019 that she had already purchased the equipment but did not receive any decision from the Council about paying for it until February 2020. This was too long. The Council has refunded the cost of the equipment and agreed to pay the interest. It has also agreed to fund further equipment. Miss B has not been without use of the equipment during this period and if the Council pays the interest it will be suitable recompense for the delay in progressing this issue.

Care agency

44. I do not agree with Miss B that the Council took insufficient action to find a replacement care agency for her. The care agency gave minimal notice of its withdrawal at a difficult time of year. I understand this was a very stressful period for Miss B but it was not due to fault by the Council. The Council made significant efforts to find another agency but all those approached either had no availability or were unable to meet Miss B’s needs. When it could not find a replacement, it agreed with Miss B’s suggestion to increase her direct payments to make arrangements over Christmas. This was clearly not ideal but a compromise in difficult circumstances.

failed to provide a reliable contact person in the Council to respond to queries and requests for information or services

45. I cannot find any fault in the way the Council responded to Miss B’s contact. For much of the time she has had an allocated social worker who has responded to her contact within a reasonable period of time. The complaints officer has also responded promptly and appropriately when Miss B escalated matters to a complaint. I consider the Council has demonstrated an acceptable level of communication and contact. When the allocated social worker was not available there was always a duty worker as an alternative.

failed to allocate a manager to her case to ensure it is progressed

46. I cannot find fault with the Council on this issue. A manager became involved where appropriate (ie when Miss B complained about her allocated worker) and there was no reason for one to be allocated to her case specifically.

failed to explain the process to her or the reasons for the delay in completion

47. As I explained above I consider there was some fault by the Council in the initial stages: failing to liaise with Officer Z and resolve the consent issues more quickly, but after that there was plenty of communication and explanation from the social worker and complaints officer.

failed to understand the nature of her disability and the impact it has on her day to day life

48. I cannot find any fault here. The assessment covered all the areas and involved Officer Z for a specialist view.

failed to respect her right to live an independent life or treat her with dignity

49. The Council accepted without question Miss B’s wish to maintain an independent life and made significant effort from September 2019 to complete the assessment process and increase her budget.

Agreed action

50. In recognition of the injustice caused to Miss B by the delay identified in the assessment process, the Council has agreed, within one month of my final decision, to:
• pay Miss B £500 for the delay;
• pay Miss B £200 for the interest accrued on her credit card for the purchase of the equipment. (The Council has already refunded the cost of buying the equipment); and
• ensure that for future assessments or interactions Miss B has an advocate or specialist support officer with knowledge and experience of visual impairment to support her through the process;
51. The Council has also agreed, when dealing with service-users with visual impairments (particularly those living on their own), to ensure it makes reasonable adjustments (direct verbal communication) so service users are fully engaged in the process and understand what is happening. This may involve providing more bespoke access to officers such as by direct telephone call.

Back to top

Final decision

52. I consider this is a proportionate way of resolving the complaint and have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman