Decision Date: 26th September 2024
Summary
Ms X complained about the length of time the Council took to complete a care needs assessment and the way it was carried out. The Council also failed to respond to the complaint itself in a timely manner or carry out a carer’s assessment, even after it was requested. Ms X was not aware of what, if any, support, to which she was entitled as a carer.
What happened
Ms X requested a care needs assessment for herself in late September 2022. After not hearing anything from the Council by February 2023, Ms X made a complaint. No communication was received in the next month and in March Ms X chased both the care assessment and the complaint.
The Council attempted but failed to contact Ms X before April 2023 when they arranged a home visit for 5th May to complete her own needs assessment. The Council then cancelled this appointment and the further two appointments that were made due to the unavailability of Ms X’s social worker. A new social worker was assigned to Ms X and a home visit was scheduled for 23rd June.
On 26th May, the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint and apologised for the delay and confirmed it had now allocated a new social worker who would arrange the care assessment.
After her home visit in June, Ms X’s care assessment was finalised in October 2023 and the Council decided she did not require any formal support from care services. Ms X denied ever receiving a written record of this conclusion.
Ms X made a further separate complaint that she had not received a carer’s assessment despite being a carer for her adult children. She said she had received a carer’s assessment in the past and would be eligible for a carer’s budget. The Council responded and said her adult children were ‘not known’ to adult social care services.
What was found
The LGSCO found fault on the part of the Council for its considerable delay in carrying out a care needs assessment. More than a year had passed since Ms X had first requested the assessment in September 2022 and when it was finally completed in October 2023.
Similarly, fault was found as the Council delayed in passing Ms X’s request onto a social worker and for cancelling numerous scheduled appointments.
The LGSCO also faulted the contents of the assessment. Whilst it said that Ms X had eligible needs, it did not specify what these were nor offer any formal support. The LGSCO highlighted how the rationale of this decision is nowhere to be found.
Regarding Ms X’s complaint, the LGSCO noted how she did not receive a response within 10 working days as its policy promised. There was no justification for the three month delay and the LGSCO held that this was fault.
The LGSCO found that these faults had resulted in an injustice. Ms X will have suffered frustration and wasted time and energy chasing the Council on multiple occasions. A complaint may not have been made if the Council had completed an assessment sooner.
In addition, the Council’s failure to complete a carer’s assessment after Ms X requested one was fault. The LGSCO noted that Ms X was entitled to an assessment regardless of whether her children or family she cared for were ‘known to’ the Council. At the time of the investigation, Ms X had still not received a carer’s assessment and did not know whether she was entitled to any support.
The agreed action was as follows:
- the Council to provide Ms X with a written apology reflecting their failures and pay £300 in recognition of the distress, frustration, time and trouble she had experienced
- a new care needs assessment and carer’s assessment to be arranged for Ms X
- a further £300 to be paid in recognition of the distress and uncertainty resulting from the Council’s failure to carry out a carer’s assessment
- the Council must ensure that people are kept up to date in the future regarding requests for assessments and any delays that may arise.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups and members of the public
The Council was in breach of the Care Act and the LGSCO could have said so without any controversy, in our view. The duty to provide a carer’s assessment is triggered by the appearance of need for support, which is best regarded as having occurred if someone asks for a carer’s assessment.
The concept of unconscionable delay must be constituted by failure to manage to complete an assessment of need in less than a year.
But the existence of eligible needs triggers a duty to do a care plan, under s13 of the Care Act, even if the plan is covered off by free assets and strengths available to the person from their network or community. It is only in the stating of how the needs are to be met that there is any accountability for the council in terms of the public law duty to come to a rational conclusion that meets the requirements of addressing the evidence and setting out transparently what its thinking is.
Please use the following link if you want to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s London Borough of Haringey (23 001 938) report. If you are affected by the issues in this report, please consider asking a free, one-off question, anonymously, at a level of principle, here. Our experts’ response will give you an opinion which may then help you and the broader community, when posted.
Did you enjoy this analysis? Want to stay informed with our weekly Alert Service?Then do click here to find out how you can receive the latest insights from experts and commentators and stay updated on key judicial decisions, ombudsmen’s reports, and critical law and policy changes, all for just £50 per YEAR and sent straight to your inbox or WhatsApp!