Decision date: 29 April 24
What happened:
Mr C, who is autistic and has difficulties with anxiety, was receiving a direct payment for care in the community to meet his eligible care needs.
In March 2023 Mr C contacted the Council requesting a review of his care package as he felt it was not meeting his needs. This review took place on 29 March, and Mr C stated that it was agreed during the meeting that there would be an increase of several extra hours to his care package.
On 28 April Mr C received a call from the Council regarding the support hours it would provide as part of a temporary care package over a 12 week period. Mr C stated that the hours offered by the Council were less than that previously agreed during the review meeting.
By the end of May Mr C had not received an updated support plan nor were the direct payments put into place.
On 24 May Mr C complained to the Council by phone and even by 14 June he had to chase up the direct payment which was still not in place.
On 16 June the Council put the direct payment into place.
On 23 June the Council responded to Mr C’s complaint and attached Mr C’s updated support plan. The Council accepted that it should have discussed the support hours and obtained Mr C’s views before finalising the care plan. The Council apologised for the lack of communication and delay in sending the support plan.
In recognition of its failures, the Council increased Mr C’s 12 week temporary care package by 2 extra hours per week. The Council also agreed to Mr C’s request for a new social worker.
What was found:
The LGSCO welcomed the Council’s early acceptance of fault and the Council’s remedy. We are told within the report that Mr C has previously complained to the LGSCO about the Council’s failure to assess and provide services promptly (which was upheld) so a further complaint in respect of delays is certainly concerning.
The LGSCO found fault with the Council’s delay in providing an updated support plan, which was provided 3 months after the review had taken place and after Mr C had no option but to make a complaint about the delay.
The LGSCO found fault with the Council’s not offering any alternative in the interim.
As a result of the Council’s failures, Mr C suffered further anxiety and was forced to spend time and trouble in chasing up the support plan and direct payment. Mr C ended up paying privately for extra care in the intervening period and the Council had not backdated the direct payment, therefore the LGSCO considered that the Council should repay Mr C’s extra care costs which the Council has agreed to provide as a restitutionary reimbursement.
As the Council’s faults caused Mr C injustice, the LGSCO recommended that the Council reissue the apology to Mr C (in light of the LGSCO’s findings) and make a payment of £150 in acknowledgement of the distress and anxiety caused to Mr C by the delays.
The LGSCO also recommended that the Council:
- reviews its processes to identify how long it takes to process direct payments and what steps are required to ensure payments are made in a timely manner, and
- remind its staff about:
- the importance of providing people with a copy of the care plan promptly, and advising them of the need to discuss any changes to the care plan before re-issuing;
- processing direct payments promptly;
- offer prospective recipients an alternative way to meet their needs if there is a delay in processing a direct payment.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups, members of the public
Involvement, participation and consultation
Section 27 of the Care Act 2014 deals with review of plans and provides that the Council must ensure that a person’s plan remains an accurate and up-to-date reflection of a person’s needs and the outcomes they wish to achieve and the services arranged to meet their needs.
The Council may revise the support plan when satisfied that a person’s circumstances have changed in a way that affects the plan, and when doing so must go through a proportionate re-assessment and therefore have regard to the outcomes the person identifies and other relevant matters.
The Council must involve the person when revising the plan and take reasonable steps to reach an agreement with them, just as if they were care planning the first time around.
In this case the Council had carried out the review following the adult’s request, and had accepted following the complaint that they should have discussed the proposed additional hours that were not in line with the actual discussion at the meeting, and obtained his views prior to finalising the plan.
Delay and restitution
Councils must carry out all duties within a reasonable timescale, although there are no set guidelines for how long this should take. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance provides at paragraph 12.10 that Councils must have swift and clear processes in place to deal with direct payments. In this case it took 2.5 months to get the direct payment in place, which was considered an unreasonable delay.
Financial restitution should be provided where the Council’s failure has forced a person to incur additional costs in meeting needs which should have been met by the Council. Not making restitution would mean that the Council has been unjustly enriched by the savings arising from its own failing. Therefore, as the Council did not backdate the direct payment, it was appropriate and in line with the general legal position for the LGSCO to recommend that the Council repay Mr C’s care costs incurred whilst awaiting the direct payment.
If you are affected by the issues in this report, please consider asking us a free One-off Question, at a level of principle, here.
The full Local Government Ombudsman report on the actions of London Borough of Barnet Council can be found here: https://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/adult-care-services/assessment-and-care-plan/23-011-972