The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: There was fault by the Council. An increase in care to 15 hours was agreed without the usual approval from a manager. This was poor communication which was fault. It raised Ms X’s expectations and caused her avoidable frustration and distress. The Council has now agreed the 15 hours and it will also apologise for the avoidable distress.
The complaint
Ms X complained Norfolk County Council agreed to increase her care package from 9 to 15 hours a week and then went back on the decision. Ms X said this means she does not receive adequate care to meet her needs and she suffered distress.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) If we are satisfied with an organisation’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
I considered Ms X’s complaint, the Council’s response and documents in this draft statement. I discussed the complaint with Ms X.
Ms X 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
Ms X was receiving 9 hours a week of care on three days each week which the Council arranged through a care provider. The Council reviewed Ms X’s care at the end of March 2022 because she felt nine hours was not enough.
A social worker emailed Ms X’s care provider at the end of April asking if it had capacity to provide additional care and support for Ms X on two extra days to start the following week. Ms X understood that additional funding for the hours she had requested was agreed.
The Council did not go ahead and commission extra care and support for Ms X after a manager intervened. Ms X complained.
The social worker emailed Ms X with an apology for saying there would be an increase to 15 hours. The social worker said the Council would increase the care from nine hours to 10.
The Council’s response to Ms X’s complaint in August said: The original care and support plan was for a personal assistant and a direct payment As a temporary measure, the Council arranged nine hours a week with a care provider, but this was temporary and was at a higher hourly rate She could use her budget to employ personal assistants at £12.67 an hour which would allow for 15 hours care a week whereas the care provider charged £27 an hour.
Since my investigation started, the Council confirmed it will increase Ms X’s commissioned care with the care provider to 15 hours a week and it will contact her within two weeks to arrange for her care and support plan to be updated.
Was there fault and if so did this cause injustice?
There was fault by the Council. An increase in care to 15 hours was agreed without the usual approval from a manager. This was poor communication which was fault. It raised Ms X’s expectations and caused her avoidable frustration and distress.
Agreed action
During this investigation, the Council confirmed the increase to 15 hours which the social worker originally agreed. This is a partial remedy. The Council will also apologise for misleading communication which raised Ms X’s expectations and caused avoidable distress. It will apologise and ensure the increase in care is actioned no later than in one month of my final decision and sooner if possible.
Final decision
There was poor communication by the Council which went back on a decision to increase Ms X’s care and support. This was fault causing avoidable frustration and distress. The Council has confirmed it will increase care and support in line with Ms X’s request. It will also apologise for the avoidable distress.
I completed the investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman