Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to deal properly with his request for a carer’s grant, leaving him without the support he needs as his mother’s carer. The Council failed to deal properly with his carer’s grant in 2021 and failed to communicate properly with him later that year, resulting in him missing out on the opportunity to be considered for a carer’s grant in 2022. The Council needs to apologise and make a symbolic payment.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains the Council failed to deal properly with his request for a carer’s grant, leaving him without the support he needs as his mother’s carer.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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, sections 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 Mr X;
• discussed the complaint with Mr X;
• considered the comments and documents the Council has provided;
• 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

What happened

5. Mr X is autistic and has impaired hearing for which he wears hearing aids. He does not receive support with this from the Council. However, the Council has assessed his needs as his mother’s carer and given him one-off carer’s direct payments.
6. In August 2018 the Council gave him £200 so he could go to a gym at least once a week to avoid social isolation and the risk of his caring role breaking down.
7. In November 2019 the Council paid another £200 towards gym membership.
8. In September 2020 Mr X emailed an Occupational Therapist (OT) who had worked with him and his mother before. He said he wanted her to visit as they would not let anyone else in their home. After Mr X called the OT, she put him on the list for a carer’s assessment. She noted he would prefer her to do the assessment. If this was not possible, she said she would speak to the assessor and then to Mr X to make sure he was comfortable with the situation.
9. Mr X called the OT in December asking when he would have his carer’s assessment. The OT asked someone to contact him about the waiting time.
10. The Council assigned an officer to do Mr X’s carer’s assessment in January 2021. The officer contacted the OT who said Mr X was reluctant to speak to anyone apart from her. She said she had spoken to him and told him she could not do his carer’s assessment but would liaise with the officer allocated to do it and would call him to let him know who would do the assessment and the likely date. The officer said she could not do the assessment until she returned from leave in February. The OT e-mailed Mr X to tell him who would do the assessment and when the officer would contact him. He said he would rather have spoken to the OT about the assessment. She told him he would “feel at ease” with the officer assigned to do it.
11. The Council assessed Mr X’s carer’s needs in February. The assessment noted his significant role in caring for his mother. It identified eligible needs relating to:
• managing and maintaining nutrition;
• developing and maintaining family and other significant personal relationships;
• accessing and engaging in work, training, education or volunteering;
• making use of necessary facilities or services in the local community including recreational facilities; and
• engaging in recreational activities.
12. Mr X asked for a direct payment to buy a tablet, to make it easier to shop online and to play games, as he could not leave his mother on her own for long. He said he needed a Bluetooth enabled tablet so he could connect it to his hearing aids. He says he told the assessor he needed software to do this which required 256mb of memory. He also told her he had identified a suitable refurbished tablet, which would have cost £200. The assessor did not record this. The assessment identified £150 as Mr X’s “indicative budget score” and that is what the Council agreed to pay him as a one-off carer’s grant. The Council also offered Mr X a sitting service, so he could go out more, but he declined the offer as he and his mother do not like strangers in their home.
13. The Council sent Mr X a copy of his assessment on 12 February. It said it had awarded him a carer’s direct payment of £150 “as a contribution towards” buying a tablet.
14. Mr X says this was not enough to buy the refurbished tablet he had identified and they now cost £469.
15. Mr X e-mailed the OT on 4 November 2021 saying he wanted to apply for another carer’s direct payment. When he did not receive a reply, he e-mailed again on 29 November.
16. The OT replied saying she was no longer working with his mother and advised him to contact the Council’s Access and Assessment Inbox.
17. The Council uses an encryption service when sending e-mails to protect people’s personal data. To access the Council’s e-mails someone’s e-mail address has to be registered with the encryption service. The Council says Mr X had been registered with the service (he disputes this), but since then he had changed his e-mail address. This meant he could not access the OT’s e-mail. Her e-mails included information about the encryption service and links to information about accessing them. Mr X, who has a mild learning disability, says this was too difficult for him to follow.
18. Mr X e-mailed again saying he could not read the OT’s message. She replied and Mr X again said he could not read her message. After receiving another e-mail from the OT on 2 December, Mr X said he could not read her messages. He said he understood if she could not help with the carer’s assessment and apologised if he had upset her. The OT did not respond.
19. On 1 March 2022 someone wrote a complaint about discrimination and unfair treatment on behalf of Mr X. It said:
• the February 2021 carer’s assessment did not address his needs;
• he could not buy a tablet with the £150 awarded, as not all tablets were suitable for someone with disabilities;
• he had previously told the OT he found it extremely difficult accessing encrypted e-mails and could not read them;
• the OT did not call him, so he gave up;
• he had been denied a carer’s direct payment in 2020 and 2022, missing out on £400; and
• he wanted to apply for a carer’s direct payment for 2023 but assumed this would be denied again.
20. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in October. In November we asked the Council to respond to his complaint. When the Council responded in December, it said:
• it had no record of receiving Mr X’s complaint in March 2022;
• the OT had not noticed he was using a new e-mail address which had not been registered with the encryption service;
• as he did not mention the encryption service the OT had not realised it was preventing him from opening her e-mails;
• the OT had not phoned him as in the past he had said he did not like being phoned, but felt confident he would call her if he needed to, as he had done previously;
• when he stopped contacting her, she assumed the issue had been resolved, not realising he had been unable to open her e-mails throughout;
• the provision of an annual carer’s direct payment (up to £200) was discretionary and depended on the outcome of a carer’s assessment;
• it did not assess his needs as a carer until February 2021 because of a backlog and having to prioritise people based on urgency and risk;
• its decision to pay £150 was based on the availability and cost of a Bluetooth enabled tablet;
• it sent him his carer’s assessment on 12 February 2021 with information on how to make a complaint, but it did not receive one;
• it apologised for not contacting him to review the outcome of the direct payment and whether it was successful in meeting the desired outcome and put this down to COVID-19 “related demands on our service”;
• there was no evidence the difficulties Mr X experienced were due to discrimination;
• it apologised for the distress Mr X had experienced and accepted his carer’s assessment was delayed by issues with the encryption service;
• it offered him a carer’s assessment and invited him to get in contact as he preferred not to be called directly by the Council; and
• it would alter staff to the difficulties of using the encryption service when communicating with people outside the Council.
21. As Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response, he made a stage 2 complaint to the Council. He said:
• it sent him an e-mail from a no reply e-mail address inviting him to get in contact to discuss his complaint, but provided no contact details;
• he had never communicated with the OT via the Council’s encrypted e-mail service, as he struggled to use it and could not remember passwords. He had clearly told her he could not read her e-mails;
• the OT should have called him when he said he could not open the e-mails she had sent via the Council’s encryption service;
• he had told the assessor about his disabilities and that he had special equipment and software to use digital services. He told her with £200 he could buy a tablet with enough memory to load the appropriate software and provided the model number;
• the Council had failed to tell him what tablet he could have bought for £150;
• he asked for a carer’s assessment in September 2020 as he knew there would be a delay in doing one but still had to wait until February 2021;
• he had never said the Council could not telephone him, just not to make unannounced visits; and
• the Council should pay him £650 so he could buy a tablet to meet his needs, reflecting the fact he did not get a £200 carer’s grant in 2020, only got £150 in 2021, did not get a grant in 2022 and should get a further £200 in 2023.
22. When the Council responded to Mr X’s stage 2 complaint in January 2023, it said:
• it had no record of receiving his March 2022 complaint but apologised if there had been an administrative error which meant it was not received;
• it apologised for sending an e-mail in December 2022 (from a no-reply e-mail address) offering to discuss his complaint with him but failing to provide any contact details;
• there had been a misunderstanding about the use of the encryption service and apologised for the distress this had caused;
• he should tell future practitioners that he could not access e-mails sent via the encryption service but could read ones sent outside that service;
• £150 was enough to buy a Bluetooth enabled tablet, but it was open to Mr X to use his own money to buy a premium model;
• a carer’s direct payment was not an inevitable outcome of a carer’s assessment, so could not be assumed;
• a carer’s direct payment could not be paid retrospectively; and
• it apologised for the misunderstanding about Mr X’s contact preferences.
23. The Council says the decision to pay a carer’s direct payment of £150 was based on the average cost of a Bluetooth enabled tablet bought over the internet.

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

24. The Council’s claim that the decision to give Mr X a carer’s grant of £150 in 2021 was based on the average cost of a Bluetooth enabled tablet, is not supported by the evidence. There is nothing in its records to suggest it checked the average cost of such a tablet. On the contrary, the evidence indicates that the Council paid Mr X £150 because that was his “indicative budget score”. The Council did not satisfy itself that £150 would be enough to buy a tablet which would meet Mr X’s needs. That was fault by the Council.
25. The Council’s explanation for why the OT did not do more to resolve the problem Mr X had reading her e-mails did not make much sense. He repeatedly told her he could not read them and his final e-mail confirmed he could not read any of them. There is nothing in the Council’s records to suggest Mr X would not have wanted the OT to call him. It is clear she was the only officer he wanted to deal with and had even invited her to his home. There was no basis to assume Mr X had resolved the issue. He gave up because he did not receive an effective response. This poor communication was fault by the Council. It resulted in Mr X not being considered for a carer’s grant in 2022, caused unnecessary distress and put him to the time and trouble of pursing his complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

26. I recommended the Council:
• within four weeks writes to Mr X apologising for the failure to deal properly with his carer’s grant in 2021, the poor communication later that year, which resulted in him missing the opportunity of being considered for a carer’s grant in 2022, the distress he has been caused and the time and trouble he has been put to in pursuing his complaint, and pays him £200; and
• within eight weeks, consider giving people the option to opt out of receiving encrypted e-mails if that is their preference.
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.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman