Summary: Mr X complains the Council is failing to meet his son’s, Mr Q’s, needs for care and support. The Council accepts it took too long to reassess his needs, the assessment contained inaccuracies, the draft care and support plan lacked clarity and it changed his personal budget without giving four weeks’ notice. The Council has apologised for the delay and the inaccuracies but not the lack of clarity or the lack of notice. The Council accepts the need to reassess Mr Q’s needs based on his current circumstances. The Council needs to provide a more detailed apology, acknowledging the contribution its failings have had on the poor relationship with the family. It also needs to make a symbolic payment to Mr Q for the distress caused by the lack of notice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council is failing to meet his son’s, Mr Q’s, needs for care and support.

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)
4. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have investigated events since 2022. I have not investigated event before 2022 because of the restriction in paragraph 4 above. The Council respond to a complaint from Mr X in October 2021 and told him he could complain to the Ombudsman. Mr X did not do that but instead commissioned a solicitor to write to the Council on his behalf. The Solicitor wrote to the Council in December 2021, after which there were further exchanges of correspondence. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in November 2023, after the Council responded to a further complaint of his in October 2023. I have exercised the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate events from 2022. However, I am satisfied that the complaint about events before 2022 are a late complaint and that it had been open to Mr X to complain to the Ombudsman within 12 months of those events, but he chose not to and to purse his concerns via a solicitor.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by X;
• discussed the complaint with Mr X;
• 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 Mr X and the Council, for me to consider before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. They must provide an assessment to everyone regardless of their finances or whether the council thinks the person has eligible needs. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the results they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where suitable their carer or any other person they might want involved.
8. Councils must carry out assessments over a suitable and reasonable timescale considering the urgency of needs and any variation in those needs. Councils should tell people when their assessment will take place and keep them informed throughout the assessment.
9. 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.
10. Section 27 of the Care Act 2014 says councils should keep care and support plans under review. Government Care and Support Statutory Guidance says councils should review plans at least every 12 months. Councils should consider a light touch review six to eight weeks after agreeing and signing off the plan and personal budget. They should carry out reviews as quickly as is reasonably practicable in a timely manner proportionate to the needs to be met. Councils must also conduct a review if an adult or a person acting on the adult’s behalf makes a reasonable request for one.

What happened

11. Mr X’s son, Mr Q, has autism and ADHD. He also has scoliosis (twisted/curved spine) which causes pain in his legs. When the Council assessed Mr Q’s needs in November 2019, he was at university but spending weekends at home. The assessment identified the need for support with:
• Managing and maintaining nutrition – needed help planning, prompting and preparing meals
• Maintaining personal hygiene –needed prompting and practical support
• Managing toilet needs – needed a wash and dry toilet to be independent
• Being appropriately clothed – needed support choosing appropriate clothes and dressing his lower half
• Maintaining a habitable home – needed practical support and prompting
• Making use of the home safely – needed prompts and reminders to keep him safe
• Developing and maintaining family or other personal relationships – needed support with communication and accessing the community
• Accessing and engaging in work, training, education or volunteering – needed practical and emotional support with education
• Making use of necessary facilities or services in the local community, including public transport and recreational facilities or services – needed support due to lack of road safety awareness and when in unfamiliar environments
12. Mr Q’s care and support plan provided for a personal budget of £180.51 a week. This was to pay for 11 hours of support and was paid as a direct payment. The care and support plan said his parents provided informal support, but this was more difficult as he was living away from home. It said the personal budget could be used to pay a care provider or employ a personal assistant. However, it said the money could also be used flexibly through engaging in community opportunities, attending groups, taking part in new experiences, visiting conventions or going to rugby matches. It said it could also be used towards the cost of travelling to/from university (45p a mile). It said he would benefit from formal support with domestic tasks (2 hours a week), hair washing and shaving (2 hours a week), shopping (2 hours a week), budgeting (1 hour a week) and accessing the community (4 hours a week).
13. Although the Council identified the need to review Mr Q’s needs in June 22, it actually started the review in October 2022. It did this remotely and included Mr Q’s parents and their private advocate.
14. In February and March 2023 the Council consulted its legal team abouts its draft assessment.
15. The Council held a further meeting with Mr Q in May 2023. The meeting was again held remotely and included Mr Q’s parents and their private advocate. The completed assessment said his parents visited him every three weeks. Mr Q said he used his personal budget to go out with friends and to go to conventions. He confirmed his parents provided support over the telephone each day and when they visited.
16. The assessment said Mr Q now needed support for 9 ½ hours every three weeks to help with hair care (30 mins), cleaning and laundry (3 hours), shopping (2 hours), budgeting (1 hour), and cooking and storing meals (3 hours). This would have resulted in a personal budget of £51.87 a week. It said Mr Q also needed daily prompts to take medication and undertake personal care (10 minutes each day, 2 hours 20 minutes a week). It is not clear from the assessment whether the Council was planning to fund the cost of this support. The assessment said Mr Q could explore using an app or reminders on his phone to take his medication and undertake his personal care.
17. The Council wrote to Mr Q on 4 July. It said the increase in his independence meant it would be reducing his support from £180.51 to £90.19 a week from 10 July. It sent him copies of his assessment, care and support plan, and a direct payment agreement to sign. It invited him to get in contact if the things they had spoken about had not been written in the right way. Mr Q did not respond.
18. On 10 August Mr X made a complaint to the Council about the failure to support the family, including Mr Q.
19. In September the Council wrote to Mr X inviting him to get in contact to arrange a meeting to discuss the assessment, but he did not respond.
20. When the Council replied to Mr X’s complaint in October, it said:
• The evidence showed Mr Q had progressed while at university (i.e. was more independent);
• It understood Mr Q was studying at a different university, further away from his home (not reflected in his assessment), and that his course was due to end in September 2023;
• It had been wrong to say Mr Q had a girlfriend in his assessment, as that was no longer the case;
• It was not clear how Mr Q could pay his family to meet his needs, or how they could be supported to visit him to meet his needs;
• His personal budget provided for three weekly support and remote prompts. He wanted his parents to meet his needs. Mrs X had said she would not want anyone else to support Mr Q with meals. If Mr Q employed his mother as his paid carer, she would not be eligible for a carer’s assessment.
• It was satisfied all the relevant people had been contacted about Mr Q’s assessment.
• It accepted there were inaccuracies in the assessment which should have been corrected.
• It would provide the details of three independent social workers who could provide a view on how to move things forward, so Mr X could select the one her preferred.
• It needed a signed direct payment agreement to make direct payments, which it would review periodically.
• It failed to give four weeks’ notice before reducing his personal budget on 10 July. It would reinstate his previous personal budget, pending a further assessment and new care and support plan (i.e. reinstated his personal budget of £180.51 a week).
21. In November Mr X made a further complaint. When the Council replied, it said:
• It was withdrawing the offer to commission an independent social worker, as Mr X had questioned the independence of any social worker sourced by the Council.
• It would allocate a new social worker to reassess Mr Q. As his course had ended, his circumstances had changed. It accepted there were some errors in his assessment and that his support plan needed more clarity.
• It needed to review Mr Q’s use of his direct payments, so would need to see receipts since April 2023. The direct payment agreement would need to be signed, provided the audit of receipts was satisfactory.

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

22. The Council accepts:
• there were inaccuracies in the assessment of Mr Q’s needs - it referred to a girlfriend who was no longer around and failed to identify the fact Mr Q had moved to another university further away from home.
• there was a need for greater clarity in the care and support plan – to remedy this it reinstated the previous plan, but this brought no greater clarity as it no longer reflected Mr Q’s circumstances.
• changed Mr Q’s personal budget without giving four weeks’ notice – to remedy this it reinstated his previous personal budget, despite this no longer reflecting his circumstances.
• it took too long to complete the assessment – it assigned a social worker to review Mr Q’s needs in February 2022, but did not send the draft assessment to him until July 2023. It also appears a review may have been overdue since 2020, as the last assessment was done in 2019.
23. Although the Council apologised for the delay in assessing Mr Q and the inaccuracies in the assessment, it did not apologise for the lack of clarity in the care and support plan or the failure to give four weeks’ notice before reducing his personal budget. The Council needs to give a fuller apology. Retrospectively reinstating Mr Q's personal budget did not necessarily remedy the injustice caused by the lack of notice, as Mr Q will not have known that a higher rate of expenditure was available. It is not possible to quantify that injustice. Nevertheless, it caused avoidable distress which warrants a symbolic payment.
24. However, the Council has been open to reviewing the documents since it completed them. But neither Mr Q nor his parents have responded to its invitations. Mr X says he wants the Council to leave them alone. However, if they want support from the Council, they will need to engage with it. The whole process needs to start again with Mr Q, as neither the assessment of his needs nor the care and support plan reflect his current circumstances, given that he is now living with his parents again.
25. The Council is entitled to review the use of direct payments. It is something all councils do. They need to make sure the money has been used to meet the needs set out in a care and support plan. Councils are also entitled to ask for funds to be repaid if they have not been spent. The Council has explained it allows people to retain four weeks of direct payments as a contingency fund. People can also retain the money to cover overdue invoices.

Back to top

Agreed action

26. I recommended the Council:
• Within four weeks of my final decision, sends a written apology to Mr Q and Mr X which addresses its failings and acknowledges the contribution they have made to the poor relationship with the family, and offers to reassess Mr Q’s needs and pays him £250 for the distress cause.
27. The Council has agreed to do this. It should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

28. 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