Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to assess her needs properly and took over a year to send the assessment to her. The Council accepts it took too long to send Ms X her assessment. It needs to apologise, make a symbolic payment and reassess her needs, taking account of her requests for adjustments when doing the assessment.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains the Council failed to assess her needs properly and took over a year to send the assessment to her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Ms X’s advocate;
• discussed the complaint with Ms X’s advocate;
• considered the comments and documents the Council has provided in response to my enquiries;
• considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies; and
• invited comments on a draft of this statement from Ms X and the Council, for me to consider before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. Ms X has been diagnosed with autism and ADHD. She also has mental health problems, for which she was referred to an NHS Community Mental Health Team.
6. Ms X asked the Council to assess her needs in February 2022. She said she was having problems with all aspects of daily living, eating, drinking, making meals, personal hygiene, leaving her home and attending appointments. She said she could not deal with telephone calls. She said she regularly experienced sensory overload, which could result in meltdowns and shutdowns.
7. The Council tried calling Ms X but after exchanging e-mails with her, it agreed to communicate in writing. It sent Ms X a list of questions. Ms X said she would need time to respond and asked for more information on one of the questions, which the Council provided. Ms X did not respond further.
8. The Council referred Ms X for an assessment under the Care Act 2014 in May, on the basis it would require a face-to-face meeting. In July it allocated a social worker to do the assessment. Around this time Ms X’s advocate started working with her and communicated with the Council on her behalf. They agreed to postpone the assessment until September, so Ms X could focus on her claims for benefits. Ms X felt overwhelmed by the application process.
9. They agreed to do the assessment on 28 September at 13.30. The social worker arrived at 13.20 and waited an hour with Ms X’s advocate, to allow time for Ms X to prepare for the assessment. The social worker offered to do the assessment in two stages, but Ms X wanted to complete it that day.
10. According to the Council’s records the social worker completed the assessment but needed to write it up.
11. In October the social worker contacted the NHS to find out what support was in place for Ms X, as she appeared to be having a mental health crisis.
12. In February 2023 the Council noted the social worker still needed to write Ms X’s assessment. It appears the social worker was still at work at this time.
13. In March the Council again noted Ms X’s assessment still needed writing up. It is not clear whether the social worker was still at work.
14. In March Ms X’s advocate made a complaint on her behalf. They said the assessment had not followed best practices as:
• The social worker should have met Ms X more than once
• Despite the advocate asking beforehand, Ms X did not receive a copy of the assessment before being assessed
• Ms X was not given the opportunity to explain what outcomes she wanted to achieve
• The assessment did not take account of Ms X’s communication needs, including the need for easy read documents, and asking more focused questions, rather than open questions
• The social worker did not ask Ms X about her sensory needs
• It failed to take account of Ms X masking her needs
• Ms X did not receive a copy of her assessment or care and support plan
• It was not clear whether the social worker understood about dealing with people with autism
• Ms X was not asked about her experience of abuse
15. Ms X’s advocate contacted the Ombudsman in May, as the Council did not respond to the complaint. The Council told us it had no record of the complaint
16. In June 2023 the Council received a referral for an assessment for Ms X from the NHS Community Mental Health Team. This said she was having difficulties:
• using facilities or services in the local community
• accessing and engaging in work, training, education or volunteering
• meeting caring responsibilities for a child or another adult (which was not the case).
17. In September the social worker wrote up Ms X’s assessment. The assessment, the accuracy of which Ms X disputes, said she:
• Could travel independently but had problems due to hyper mobile joints
• Could do her own personal care but showering could take hours
• Could cook independently, do her own shopping but mainly ate microwave meals
• Managed her own medication
• Could access the community and meet friends
• Was receiving help applying for benefits, but could manage her own money
• Was unable to work because of her mental health
• Had chart/plans to prompt her with day-to-day tasks
• Could independently contact emergency and other support services
18. The assessment did not say what Ms X hoped to achieve with support from the Council. The Council decided Ms X’s needs primarily related to her mental health. It decided she did not have eligible care needs under the Care Act 2014, as she did not have two outcomes which she was unable to achieve. It said Ms X was on the waiting list for the Community Mental Health Team. It said it had provided advice and guidance on connecting to community and voluntary organisations.
19. When the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint in October, it said:
• It apologised for the delay in responding
• Reasonable adjustments had been made from the outset
• Ms X chose the date and time of the assessment and was given time to prepare for it on the day
• Ms X asked for the assessment to be completed on one visit and was given breaks throughout the assessment
• Mental health support was in place (Ms X says this was not correct, as she has never received any support from mental health services) and the social worker made referrals to other services
• It apologised for the delay in sending Ms X her assessment and said it would now send it to her
20. The social worker sent Ms X’s assessment to her. They did not offer to discuss the assessment with Ms X.

Is there evidence of fault by the Council which caused injustice?

21. The Council accepts it took too long to send Ms X a copy of her assessment. While the social worker being away from work was out of anyone’s control, the evidence shows the social worker was still at work for five or six months after assessing Ms X’s needs. Failing to write the assessment within that time was fault by the Council. The assessment was also flawed as it did not say what Ms X hoped to achieve with support from the Council.
22. The failure to complete the assessment within a reasonable timescale prevented Ms X from commenting on a draft of the assessment and correcting any inaccuracies. Given the amount of time which has now passed, the Council should reassess Ms X’s needs. In doing this, it needs to take account of her request for adjustments so she can fully participate in the process.

Back to top

Agreed action

23. The Council has agreed to:
1. within four weeks, write to Ms X apologising for the failure to send her assessment to her within a reasonable timescale, the failure to recognise the need to review the assessment with her and the distress this has caused;
2. within four weeks, pay Ms X £250 for the distress she has been caused;
3. within four weeks, reassess Ms X’s needs, taking account of her requests for adjustments (as set out in her complaint) to meet her needs when doing the assessment; and
4. within eight weeks, identify the action it is going to take to ensure draft assessments are provided within four weeks of the assessment and, if a member of staff is unavailable for a long time, another member of staff is assigned to complete the task.
24. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed my investigation on the basis there has been fault by the Council causing injustice which requires a remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman