Lancashire County Council (21 010 286)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council cut her care and support without reasoning and did not suitably review her needs. This caused her personal budget to be cut and her to miss out on the support she needed. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to review Miss X’s needs in a timely manner, and for reducing Miss X’s support without clear reasoning. The Council has agreed to the recommended financial remedies.
In this complaint the council did not review Miss X’s care needs for four years from 2017 to 2021. This is at fault as care and support plans should be reviewed at least yearly, or more often if issues arise. By failing to review Miss X’s care needs the Council had not been able to review the changes that occurred to Miss X in the period between reviews, which had they been identified, would have ensured Miss X was accessing the right support and possibly prevented the issues that then arose following the 2021 review.
The 2021 assessment reduced Miss X’s personal budget by nearly half, the reason given for this was the 2017 assessment had noted that Miss X may move into supported accommodation and as she had not moved the Council therefore needed to reduce her budget. However, the 2021 assessment did not identify any significant changes in care needs and it appeared that Miss X’s possible move into supported accommodation in 2017 was not a factor in the level of her previous budget. The Council redecided Miss X’s budget three times following the 2021 assessment and recognised it did not fully support Miss X’s needs.
The Care Act requires that where a council has determined a person has eligible needs it must meet these needs, subject to meeting the financial criteria. This becomes particularly relevant to the next part of the complaint which was that Miss X did not have suitable support during the COVID-19 lockdowns.
The Council evidenced that staff contacted Miss X’s representatives to explore whether support was needed and offered remote support from Centre A. The remote support was declined as it was felt it did not meet Miss X’s needs.
The Ombudsman states “COVID-19 was a difficult time for Council’s and care providers. Miss X was contacted by the Council and the day care centre, and it was explored whether she would be able to engage with the limited support that was being offered. I am satisfied the Council and Centre A explored whether Miss X could engage with the limited support that was on offer.”
He goes on to say “I do not consider Miss X to have been caused an injustice during COVID-19. Services were struggling with the pandemic, and she was offered the support that was available at the time.”
A disappointing response as Lancashire had not enacted COVID easements and therefore were required to continue to meet Care Act duties. Although the complaint does not give us specific detail, it would appear that attendance at centres A & B was not possible and so remote interaction with centre A was offered. This seems to have been accepted as sufficient by the ombudsman without any consideration as to whether the remote access would actually meet the assessed needs in line with the care plan. In fact the ombudsman describes it as “the limited support that was on offer” as opposed to “sufficient alternative support.”
The fact that the family of Miss X have declined the support as being insufficient to meet needs should have triggered a long overdue review of needs at this point in and assess how they could be met in the circumstances.
We have recently seen the ombudsman take a much stronger approach regarding this issue. In another complaint, also Lancashire County Council, Lancashire County Council (21 012 497) the ombudsman said “Importantly, it must be considered that all the interruptions to Mrs H’s care and support took place during the COVID-19 pandemic. Care and support workers during this time were under unprecedented pressure and were not able to provide the type of care and support many service users should have received. This was not a problem exclusive to Mrs H, Complete Care or the Council. Adult social care providers were required to prioritise service users and in many cases, strict adherence to care and support plans was not possible. However, I have seen no evidence the Council took the decision to exercise the Care Act 2014 ‘easements’ created under the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020. The Council was under a legal duty to meet Mrs H’s assessed needs and was at fault for not doing so.”
In the same way, Lancashire were under a legal duty to meet Miss X’s assessed needs too, but in this case it does not appear consideration has been given as to whether the remote provision would actually have done that to an acceptable standard – a defensible standard, in public law terms.