Date of decision: 29 Oct 2024
Summary
Devon County Council failed to act promptly on a complaint about inadequate adult social care, resulting in a year-long delay in re-assessment, care planning, and the implementation of support. This delay caused significant personal distress, financial hardship, essential needs going unmet and the deterioration in the complainant’s health.
What happened
Miss X, who has a fluctuating and long-term debilitating illness, impacting all aspects of her being, including cognition, energy, sleep, mobility, digestion, and sensory processing, received a Council-funded domiciliary care package from November 2022. She was sometimes house or even bed bound.
This care did not meet her needs and was withdrawn in April 2023 after unsuccessfully trialling a second care provider.
The Council recognised the need for a re-assessment, which was completed in June 2023, but a care plan and personal budget were neither finalised nor implemented. The social worker assigned to Miss X then went on sick leave and the case was not progressed in her absence. Multiple meetings took place over the following months to discuss Miss X’s case, but no action was taken to resolve the matter.
Miss X remained without Council-funded care until July 2024, relying on friends and self-funded arrangements. She incurred debt in order to self-fund her care, and reported worsening health due to lack of support. When she complained the Council acknowledged delays due to staff absence and high demand, but failed to reallocate her case promptly. Only after the Ombudsman’s intervention did the Council order a new assessment, care plan, and personal budget, which were finalised and delivered in June 2024.
What was found
The Ombudsman found the Council had failed to meet its statutory duties under the Care Act 2014 with regard to care planning and meeting needs.
Despite recognising Miss X’s ongoing eligible needs, the Council did not complete a timely review, update her care plan, or allocate a personal budget within a reasonable timeframe. This inaction left Miss X without Council-funded care for over a year.
As a result, Miss X was forced to rely on informal support and to self-fund care, leading to financial hardship, emotional distress, and a deterioration in her health. The Ombudsman concluded that the Council’s delay constituted maladministration and a breach of the wellbeing principle (section 1) and the duty under s2 with regard to prevention.
The Council accepted the findings and agreed to issue a formal apology to Miss X, pay £850 in recognition of the distress, uncertainty, and frustration caused and undertook to reimburse the reasonable care costs Miss X incurred during the whole year in which her needs were unmet, and she set about proving the expenditure on washing, cleaning and shopping support and letter writing.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups and members of the public
Section 24, Care Act 2014 gives councils a legal responsibility to provide a written care and support plan when a person’s needs have been found eligible.
Section 27 of the Act further states that Councils must review care and support plans when needs change and the Guidance says at least annually. Guidance provided to Councils (based on public law principles) requires that they ensure assessments and care planning are completed within a reasonable timescale, proportionate to the urgency and complexity of needs. Personal budgets must be allocated in a timely manner.
It is evident that the Council failed to complete a needs assessment review, finalise a care plan, and implement a personal budget within a reasonable timeframe, breaching statutory duties under the Care Act 2014.
The Council suggested that the delay was inevitable, as a result of the high level of demand on its services. The delay was regarded as excessive, and as service failure.
The Council was already aware of Miss X’s eligible needs being difficult to meet, heightening its duty to act without delay. The delay led to significant distress, deprivation of essential support, and financial hardship, resulting in a clear breach of the Care Act’s wellbeing principle (section 1) and the s2 duty regarding prevention.
Councils must ensure robust systems for reallocating cases during staff absence, timely reviews, and clear communication with service users. Advocacy groups and professionals should be vigilant in monitoring delays and challenging systemic failures that breach statutory duties and human rights.
Although the Ombudsman did find fault and order remedial action in favour of Miss X, the Investigator could have gone further. The Ombudsman’s reliance on its own guidance for remedies, rather than on the full range of legal remedies available under community care law, is not really going to enable people to get full value out of the free service offered by the Commission.
Care users are strongly advised to raise formal complaints about delays in assessments, care planning, or service delivery as early as possible. If clarification or support is needed, independent advocacy groups can provide crucial guidance on a care user’s rights under the Care Act.
Keeping detailed records is essential for members of the public when disputing any matter with a local authority. This includes logs of communications with the council, dates of contact, names of staff, and all care-related expenses incurred during the period of unmet need. It is equally important to document and clearly communicate any wider harm caused to the individual by delays, such as financial hardship, emotional distress, or deterioration in physical or mental health, as this strengthens the basis for redress. Care users should be aware that the causes of delay by an authority cannot just be cited as an excuse which absolves it of its legal duties. Individuals should not be expected to self-fund care that the council is legally obligated to provide. Where a council fails to meet its statutory responsibilities, care users can be entitled to reimbursement for reasonable costs incurred, or labour that had to be expended, as well as compensation for distress and harm caused.
Please use the following link if you want to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s Devon County Council (24 003 469) 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!