The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr D complains the Council’s adult social care team failed to help him deal with his council tax benefits or to get food during the first coronavirus lockdown in 2020. The Council did not send Mr D a copy of his care and support assessment, but this did not cause him any injustice. We have found no fault in the other parts of Mr D’s complaint.
The complaint
Mr D complains the Council’s adult social care team failed to help him deal with his council tax benefits or to get food during the first coronavirus lockdown in 2020. This has caused him distress and meant bailiffs visited.
What I have investigated I have investigated Mr D’s complaint about the actions of the Council’s adult social care team. Mr D also complained to us about council tax reductions and the Council taking recovery action for unpaid council tax. I have not investigated that complaint as we have already made a decision in March 2021 that we would not investigate.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the council of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5)) If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
Another investigator spoke to Mr D about his complaint. I considered a note of that call, the information he sent and the Council’s response to our enquiries.
Mr D did not originally complain to the Council about the actions of the adult social care team. However, I have exercised my discretion to investigate as the Council had an opportunity to reply to Mr D’s complaint after we contacted it in October 2020.
Mr D and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Care and support needs The Care Act 2014 requires local authorities to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. The assessment determines what the person's needs are and whether the person has any needs which are eligible for support from the council.
To have needs which are eligible for support, the needs must arise from or be related to a physical or mental impairment or illness, and, because of the needs, the adult must be unable to achieve two or more outcomes – such as maintaining personal hygiene or maintaining their home. This can include managing financial matters.
Where councils have determined that a person has any eligible needs, they must meet those needs. The person's needs and how they will be met must be set out in a care and support plan.
Safeguarding adults "Safeguarding" means protecting an adult’s right to live in safety, free from abuse and neglect. The law says a council must make necessary enquiries if it has reason to think a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and if that person has needs for care and support which mean he or she cannot protect himself or herself. The enquiries should determine whether any action needs to be taken to prevent or stop abuse or neglect. (section 42, Care Act 2014) Councils must arrange for an independent advocate to represent and support an adult, where the adult has 'substantial difficulty' in being involved in the safeguarding process and where there is no other suitable person to represent and support them.
COVID-19 This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.
In March 2020, the Government introduced a national lockdown to reduce the spread of coronavirus. This required people to stay at home, with limited exceptions such as leaving the home to shop for food and medicine or to exercise. The Government advised people considered by the NHS to be at high risk (clinically extremely vulnerable) from COVID-19 to take extra steps to protect themselves. This was called shielding. People who were shielding were eligible for a government food parcel delivered to their home.
What happened Mr D is in his 80s, has a hearing problem and has had cancer. He has ongoing issues with council tax and rent arrears which cause bailiffs to visit him.
In May 2019 the Council received a safeguarding alert that Mr D may be at risk of financial abuse. As a result the social worker and a housing officer visited Mr D on 5 July 2019.
Mr D discussed the problems with his housing and debts. He said his landlord had failed to apply for a council tax exemption or discretionary housing payment when he had moved into his current home in 2016. He had complained to the landlord about this.
The social worker agreed to find out whether Mr D was eligible for a council tax exemption. The Council appointed an independent advocate to help Mr D with the safeguarding process, although it had not assessed him as lacking capacity to make decisions.
The Council’s visual and hearing impairment team contacted Mr D to see if it could help him with his hearing problem. It provided a device he could use with his telephone.
On 3 September 2019 the Council’s council tax team wrote to Mr D. It said he was not eligible for a council tax exemption as he was not severely mentally impaired and did not meet the other criteria for exemption.
The safeguarding investigation continued. On 17 September 2019 the police told the Council they had visited Mr D. The police decided not to take any further action as Mr D was able to decide how to spend his own money and no crime had been committed. The safeguarding case was closed on 9 October 2019.
Mr D contacted the Council as he had had another bailiff letter. The social worker spoke to him on 18 October 2019 and advised him he was not eligible for council tax exemption. She said he should contact the bailiffs and arrange to make payments. She offered to help him manage his money.
On 5 November 2019 there was a meeting with Mr D to discuss his financial situation as he was in debt but was giving his money to other people. The Council, police, landlord and Mr D’s advocate attended. The meeting discussed Mr D’s council tax and rent issues. The Council agreed to assess Mr D’s care and support needs.
In December 2019 the Council gave Mr D a food voucher.
The social worker completed the assessment on 17 January 2020. This found that Mr D did not have eligible care and support needs. In relation to financial management it found he was able to manage his money. Mr D sometimes did not have sufficient funds in his account; this was often because he had given money to friends who he felt needed support. Mr D had the capacity to make this decision.
When the COVID-19 lockdown started in March 2020, the social worker referred Mr D to a community group that could support him with shopping and food deliveries. She called Mr D on 25 March. He was trying to find out if he was on the shielding list. Mr D said he had been self-isolating for two weeks and was running short of fresh food and milk. He had a list of shops willing to deliver food and could use the internet to order. Mr D called back the next day to say his daughter and the community group would deliver food. The Council closed Mr D’s social care case as he was not eligible for support, but the social worker called every month to check on his welfare during lockdown.
In April 2020 Mr D said he was unhappy he had not received the free food parcel from the Government as he was not listed as clinically extremely vulnerable. In May 2020 Mr D asked for the minutes of the 5 November 2019 meeting and for a copy of the care and support needs assessment. In July 2020 he was concerned that the support from the community group would be coming to an end as lockdown eased.
The Council received another safeguarding alert about a risk of financial abuse in August 2020. The social worker spoke to Mr D. He sent the adult social care team a copy of the outcome of his complaint about the landlord, which had been upheld. He said he was going to complain to the Ombudsman. The social worker offered to refer Mr D for support with clearing his home and she sent him information about using food banks.
Mr D came to the Ombudsman but it was too soon for us to investigate as Mr D had not yet complained to the Council about the adult social care team. We contacted the Council about Mr D’s complaint.
Mr D came back to the Ombudsman in April 2021 as he had not heard from the Council. The Council replied to Mr D’s complaint in May 2021, but its reply was only about the council tax issues.
Mr D told us it took six months to get a copy of the care and support assessment and minutes of the November 2019 meeting. During this time the Council had taken no action and the bailiffs continued visiting.
My findings
In July 2019 the social worker agreed to ask the council tax team whether Mr D was eligible for a council tax exemption. She did so and the Council then wrote to Mr D in September 2019 to advise he was not. The social worker discussed this with Mr D in October 2019.
In response to my draft decision, Mr D said he was also asking about council tax reductions, such as discounts and discretionary housing payments. I am not investigating the council tax issues. I have seen evidence the social worker referred Mr D’s concerns to the council tax team. There is therefore no fault.
Some of Mr D’s financial problems are caused because he gives money to friends. There have been safeguarding alerts to the Council about this, because there is a risk the friends are financially abusing Mr D. Following the safeguarding investigation, it was determined Mr D had the capacity to decide how to spend his money and no crime had been committed. The social worker had offered to help Mr D with his money management but he did not want this. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the safeguarding investigation was carried out.
At the meeting in November 2019, the Council agreed to assess Mr D’s care and support needs. This found he was not eligible for support from the Council.
It is not the Ombudsman's role to say what a person's needs are, or what services they should receive. The Ombudsman's role is to consider if a Council has followed the correct process to assess a person's needs. In doing so we look at what information the Council considered, and if it took account of the service users/carers wishes. If a Council considers all this information properly the Ombudsman cannot find a Council at fault just because a service user disagrees with its decision, or outcome of an assessment.
The assessment is detailed and describes Mr D's needs. Mr D was involved and he had also been appointed an advocate. As there is no evidence of fault in the way the assessment was carried out, I cannot criticise the Council’s decision that Mr D was not eligible as this is a decision it was entitled to make.
I have seen no evidence the assessment was sent to Mr D until May 2020, but I do not consider this caused Mr D a significant injustice as he was not eligible for support.
In relation to provision of food during the pandemic. There is evidence the Council gave Mr D a food voucher in December 2019. During the pandemic he was self-isolating and a referral was made to a community group to shop and deliver food. The social worker made welfare checks and sent him information about food banks. Mr D was able to order food online and had support from his daughter. He did not get the free food parcel from the Government because he was not officially shielding. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.
Final decision
There was fault by the Council but this did not cause significant injustice to Mr D. I have completed my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman