Summary: Ms M complained the Council failed to address her concerns about the adult care services her son, Mr S, receives. The Council is at fault for delay reviewing Mr S’s care plan and failing to carry out a transport assessment.

The complaint

1. Ms M complained the Council failed to address her concerns about the adult care services her disabled son, Mr S, receives. The Council agrees Mr S should attend a day centre four or five times a week, and swimming sessions once a week. It currently arranges for him to attend day centre twice a week and says the transport is too expensive. The Council suggested Ms M buys a Motability car. Ms M said they cannot afford this, and says the Council has not considered alternative transport solutions. Ms M also complained the social worker is unresponsive and difficult to communicate with. The situation has affected Mr S's wellbeing and caused the family distress. Ms M would like the Council to provide the support her son needs and a new social worker.

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. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
• Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
• The Care Act 2014 and the Care and Support Statutory Guidance.
5. Ms M and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. We may investigate complaints from the person affected by the complaint issues, or from someone else if they have given their consent. If the person affected cannot give their consent, we may investigate a complaint from a person we decide is a suitable representative. (section 26A or 34C, Local Government Act 1974)
7. 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.
8. If a person has an eligible need for adult social care, the Council has a duty to assess whether the person needs transport to access the service. This is the same for people who receive Personal Independence Payment (PIP) mobility.
9. 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

10. I have summarised below the key events; this is not intended to be a detailed account.
11. Mr S is an adult with disabilities. He lives with his mother (Ms M) and father (Mr F). Ms M and Mr F have health issues.
12. The Council reviewed Mr S’s care plan in October 2022. It says Mr S attends a day centre twice a week and was on a waiting list to attend more days as ‘two times a week does not meet his needs’. The plan also says Mr S would benefit from weekly swimming sessions.
13. The transport costs for Mr S are around £220 per day. This is because Mr S needs a minibus large enough to take his wheelchair, he must be the sole occupant with an escort.
14. In April 2023, the Council completed a financial assessment on Mr S. It said Mr S is to pay a weekly contribution of just under £40 towards his care.
15. In October 2023, the Council explored alternative arrangements for transport for Mr S. The price for transport to the day centre was £220. There were only three transport providers that could meet the need and the Council was concerned if it tendered again for the route, it risked increasing the costs.
16. Ms M complained to the Council in December 2023. She said the social workers performance fell short of what she expected and requested the Council assign a new social worker to her son. She also said Mr S’s attendance at the day care centre should be extended beyond the two days, and for swimming to be included. She asked the Council to secure suitable transport for Mr S to these activities.
17. The Council issued a stage one response in early January 2024 and a stage two response in late February. It did not uphold Ms M’s complaint about the social workers and said there were no concerns about their work. It explained Mr S may be allocated a new social worker in the adult’s team when he turns 25. The Council agreed Mr S would benefit from increased attendance at day care and swimming sessions. The issue was providing safe transport for Mr S as the daily cost was around £220. The Council suggested Ms M and Mr F use the mobility component of Mr S’s PIP to buy a Motability vehicle for Mr S. The Council said it would provide a driver to transport Mr S to his daily activities. The complaint response said the Council had completed a financial assessment and it considered this was an affordable option.
18. Ms M complained to the Ombudsman. She complained about communication issues with the social work team, failure to increase the number of day centre and swimming sessions Mr S received and the Council’s insistence on Mr S buying a Motability vehicle to enable transport to his activities.
19. In conversation with me, Ms M said the Council agreed Mr S can attend the day centre five times a week, including a swimming session, but it will not agree transport. Ms M said Mr S has a low income and he uses his PIP to pay for other things. He cannot afford a Motability vehicle. She said this is not a solution. Neither Mr F nor Ms M would be able to drive the vehicle and provide support to Mr S throughout the journey.
20. In April 2024, Mr S turned 25 and Adult Social Care support him. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it assigned a new social worker to Mr S when his family requested this.

Analysis

21. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed Mr S has a new social worker. This is the result Ms M sought. I do not consider further investigation into this part of the complaint will result in a different result. I do not propose to investigate this further.
22. The Council should review an individual’s care plan at least every 12 months. The Council has not reviewed Mr S’s care plans since October 2022. The Council should have reviewed the care plan in October 2023. This is still outstanding and is an eight-month delay. This is fault.
23. Considering the requests for change to the Care Plan, the discussion around getting Mr S to attend the day centre for more days and the health conditions of Ms M and Mr F, I would expect the Council to have prioritised this case and reviewed it much sooner. It did not, the Council is at fault.
24. I asked the Council to send a copy of its Policy for Transport to Adult Care Services or provide a link to where it is available online. The Council provided links to its Home to School Transport Policy and its Post 16 Transport to education. It did not provide a similar policy for adults needing transport to adult care services. Not having such a policy is poor practice and makes the situation unclear for people using the service. Many other Councils have such a policy.
25. The Council agreed Mr S would benefit from attending the day centre and swimming sessions more regularly. This is recorded in his care plan and in the complaint response. These services meet an eligible need. The Council therefore has a duty to assess whether Mr S needs transport to access these services. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it has not completed a transport assessment. This is fault.
26. In its complaint response, the Council suggested Mr S use his PIP to fund a Motability Vehicle. Mr S can choose how he wishes to spend his PIP and already uses the money to pay for other things. The Council has no power to require him to spend the money in a certain way.
27. In its complaint response, the Council said it completed a financial assessment which showed buying a Motability vehicle was an affordable choice for Mr S. In response to my enquiries, the Council said ‘this was a suggestion, no assessment was made about the affordability of the family being able to do this’. Apart from the standard financial assessment, I have not seen evidence the Council has made any specific financial assessment for transport for Mr S. It is unclear what work the Council has done before suggesting these options as viable. The Council should have done more to understand the transport options available to the family and the financial viability. Its failure to do so is fault.

Summary of fault causing injustice

28. The Council has failed to complete the annual review of the Care Plan for Mr S and has failed to review the plan considering the changes in circumstances. The Council has also failed to conduct a travel assessment and consider the unique circumstances of Mr S and his family when considering his transport options and the affordability. This has caused the family distress as they are uncertain what services they are entitled to how Mr S can access this.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council agreed to:
• Complete an annual review of Mr S’s care plan;
• Complete a transport assessment for Mr S and implement this as soon as possible.
• Apologise and pay Mr S £500 for the distress caused by the delay in reviewing the care plan and failing to complete a transport assessment;
• Commit to create a transport policy for adult social care users to provide clarity about eligibility for the service; and
• Remind officers to complete annual reviews and transport assessments where needed.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation. The Council is at fault for delay in reviewing Mr S’s care plan and failing to carry out a transport assessment.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman