Summary: X complained the Council failed to properly communicate with them and delayed carrying out an assessment when they requested support to meet their care needs. The Council was at fault for the delay in assessing X’s needs. It has agreed to apologise and make a payment to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty this caused X. The Council also failed to properly consider X’s request for reasonable adjustments. The Council has already apologised for the distress this caused. It has agreed to remind officers to check for any reasonable adjustments when communicating with service users.

The complaint

1. X complained the Council failed to communicate properly with them and delayed carrying out an assessment when they requested support to meet their care needs. They also complained it failed to comply with their request that they not be contacted by telephone, due to their disability. They say this caused them distress and left them without adequate support to meet their care needs.

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

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have investigated what happened up to August 2024 when the Council assessed X’s care needs.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered the initial information provided by X and information the Council provided in response to our initial enquiries. I have considered the relevant law and guidance.
6. I gave X and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered the comments I received in reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The relevant law and guidance

Assessment of need

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.

Reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities

10. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
11. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.
12. The duty is ‘anticipatory’. This means service providers cannot wait until a disabled person wants to use their services but must think in advance about what disabled people with a range of impairments might reasonably need.
13. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.

What happened

14. X has multiple health conditions and so they employed a home help to assist them with domestic tasks. X contacted the Council’s partner charity for support with seeking another home help. They advertised on websites but got no response. X had a fall and injured their shoulder so they needed further support.
15. In February 2024 X’s mental health (MH) nurse made a referral to the Council as they considered X needed an assessment to consider a package of support around their physical disabilities. The MH nurse said X needed help with cleaning, laundry, changing their bed and food preparation. They said X could not stand up for long periods of time. The MH nurse told the Council X had already tried the Council’s partner charity and other websites. They had also previously funded private care and had explored all venues to get private care.
16. In late February, a Council officer noted they had tried to call X and left a message. They also called the MH nurse who said X had very high levels of anxiety and found speaking over the phone very difficult. They said the best way to contact X was by email as it gave them the chance to process and control their anxiety and that X was prompt at responding to emails.
17. In early March another officer called X on the telephone and left a message. The officer noted X had no care act needs and needed support with cleaning, bins, washing and other household tasks. The officer noted they would make a referral to the Council’s partner charity for support with finding a provider for this. They closed the case. X emailed the Council to say they had been contacted by telephone and left a message and this was the second time it had happened despite X saying this was problematic for them. X asked the Council to make reasonable adjustments for their disability and contact them by email.
18. The MH nurse contacted the Council again in mid April to follow up their referral as X had been in touch about the impact the lack of support was having on them and the MH nurse said they had received a notification to say the case was closed. The MH nurse said X had complex health and mobility issues, severe anxiety and past trauma. X had no friends or family in the area. The MH nurse said they had arranged to communicate with X via email as X found using the phone very difficult due to their anxiety and would be very anxious to answer if the call was unexpected.
19. The Council called X again but they did not answer. The Council also called the MH nurse to explain the last contact was closed as X only needed support with domestic tasks which the Council did not fund. The MH nurse resubmitted their referral.
20. The MH nurse sent an email the next day to say please do not call the client. They have severe anxiety and will not answer. Please email to arrange a call or visit.
21. The Council agreed to refer X for a care act assessment to get a clearer understanding of their needs.
22. X complained to the Council in mid April 2024 about the lack of support and the contact by telephone. The Council responded the following month. It apologised that the Council had tried to contact them by telephone when X’s preferred method of contact was by email. It noted a suggestion was made to refer X to its partner charity in early March but there was no evidence this was progressed. It offered to re-refer X. It confirmed it had referred X for a care act assessment and apologised for the time it had taken to identify someone to undertake the assessment.
23. X remained unhappy as they remained without support and asked to go to the next stage of the Council’s complaints’ procedure. The Council responded in July 2024 and said it contacted X following the first referral and noted X required support with household tasks and it then recommended a referral to its partner charity.
24. It said it passed the second referral made in April 2024 to its neighbourhood team who agreed a care act assessment would assist the Council further in understanding X’s care needs. It said contact regarding the assessment would be made by email before the end of July. It said it was satisfied the Council had triaged X’s referrals appropriately.
25. It upheld X’s concern that the Council contacted them by telephone when this was not their preferred method of communication. It apologised and confirmed X’s preferred contact method was now properly recorded on its systems.
26. In August 2024 a social worker completed a care needs assessment with X. The assessment noted X required some support to manage everyday tasks including support to make meals and drinks, support to safely manage personal care tasks, making use of their home safely as X was currently confined to bed and low level support with vacuuming and general cleaning. The officer noted they were liaising with occupational therapy services to look at assistive technology and adaptations that might support X.

Findings

27. When it received the first referral, the Council failed to properly explore whether X required a needs assessment. The Council closed the initial referral based on the information it already had and offered to refer X for support from its partner charity when the MH nurse had already told the Council X had previously explored this without success. The Council then failed to make the referral. The failure to properly consider X’s circumstances was fault which has caused X frustration.
28. The Council agreed to carry out an assessment following a re-referral from the MH nurse and this took place in August 2024, some six months after the MH nurse made the initial referral. The delay in carrying out the assessment is fault and caused uncertainty over whether X should have received support sooner to meet their needs.
29. The Council contacted X by telephone several times despite being advised by the MH nurse that X’s preferred method of contact was email due to their high levels of anxiety. The Council failed to comply with X’s request for a reasonable adjustment with regards to communication. This was fault and caused X distress. The Council has already apologised for this which is an appropriate remedy for the distress caused.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise and pay X £200 to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty caused by the delay in assessing their needs. 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.
2. Remind relevant officers of the need to check for any reasonable adjustment requests before contacting service users.
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation. The Council was at fault causing injustice which it has agreed to remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman