Decision Date: 19 December 2024
Summary
This was a complaint that the Council had failed promptly to assess for and provide social care support for a man and for his mother as a carer, along with other staffing failures, and that it lost and inappropriately shared personal information. The Ombudsman declined to investigate further because fair compensation had been offered.
What happened
Mrs X complained that the Council failed to refer Y for a Learning Disability assessment in January 2021.
This was not investigated due to delay beyond the usual 12 months the Ombudsman is prepared to treat as acceptable. Mrs X did not complain to the Council about this until 2023. She then complained to the Ombudsman in September 2024.
May 2022 was chosen as a date from which to begin the LGSCO’s scrutiny as it was when the Council had completed Y’s Care Act assessment and Mrs X’s carer’s assessment.
The Council had then delayed in its own attempts at complaint handling.
Following these assessments there were significant delays in informing the man and his mother of the result of their assessments, communication regarding its change of policy, and in completing Y’s financial assessment.
As a result, it was not until October 2023 (18 months later) that any determination of potential support planning began.
The Council did offer Y a direct payment to cover 7 hours per week of community support. This offer was declined by Y after the result of his financial assessment because of the level of charge even though the Council suggested getting his Disability Related expenditure considered.
The Council acknowledged how the delays, poor communication, and lack of a case officer contributed to an inadequate delivery of a service in its complaint response. It also outlined service improvements regarding communicating unanticipated changes of care workers to families, how it communicated changes in policy, and with tracking the progress of complaints.
To remedy the complaint, the Council had already offered £500 to reflect the avoidable frustration and distress and this was regarded as fair.
What was found
The LGSCO found no evidence to suggest that the Council’s admitted delays in communication in the period that was being formally investigated had resulted in a delay to Y’s or Mrs X’s access to actual support.
The LGSCO noted that the Council is able to charge for adult social care and it was Y’s choice not to carry forward the Council’s attempt to reduce his client contributions through consideration of his DRE. Therefore, this meant that there was not enough evidence to justify the LGSCO’s further involvement.
The outcome of the carer’s assessment revealed that Mrs Y’s respite needs could be met through the direct payment offered to Y; given that he declined the offer, Mrs X did not receive respite.
The LGSCO did not investigate the complaint regarding improper handling of personal information as the Information Commissioner’s Office is the most suitable body to address this issue.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups and members of the public
Although it was unfortunate that Mr Y declined the offer, under chapter 11 (covering Personal budgets) of the care and support statutory guidance, it says:
“Where an adult has eligible needs for care and support, and has a personal budget and care and support plan in their own right, and the carer’s needs can be met, in part or in full, by the provision of care and support to that person needing care, then this kind of provision should be incorporated into the plan and personal budget of the person with care needs, as well as being detailed in a care and support plan for the carer.”
The investigator focused on Mrs X’s position that respite for her should not be charged to her son; but of course it may well be (and often is) charged in that way, because otherwise carers would be charged for it, or the council would be worse off from backfilling the respite time with adequate care with no income from the client.
Whilst a council is entitled to meet respite needs through the offer to the underlying person, the investigator does not seem to have considered the possibility of providing respite to the mother through her own support package, and making a decision whether or not to charge her. There is specific provision for this where the underlying person either cannot or will not agree to be provided with that form of help through his or her own package, in the legal framework and it does not seem that the Council explored this with either the son or the mother.
The following finding is also not well reasoned: “There is nothing to suggest the Council’s delays in communication delayed Y’s, or Mrs X’s access to support…” is difficult to reconcile with the other finding that the support planning did not start until 18 months after the assessment. What we think that the investigator meant was that that period was the period for which the man was being compensated in any event, and that there was no injustice because when he was offered a service he refused it.
We are left wondering whether anyone informed the man, Y, that he was entitled to a service whether or not he accepted the charge; or whether anyone assessed his mental capacity to make that decision.
Please use the following link if you want to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s Hertfordshire County Council (24 010 526) 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!