The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed in carrying out her son’s social care assessment. The Council has now agreed to carry it out within one month. We will not investigate because further investigation is unlikely to achieve anything more. We will not investigate Miss X’s other complaint that the Council refused to allow her to be her son’s personal assistant and to pay her for the care she provides him. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
The complaint
Miss X complains the Council: has delayed in carrying out a new social care assessment into her son, Mr Z’s, needs, said that she and Mr Z had not co-operated with the assessment process; failed to discuss the best way to communication with Mr Z and act in his best interests.
Miss X also complains that the Council refuses to allow Mr Z to employ her as his personal assistant which would enable her to be paid for the care she provides.
Miss X says that as a result, they have both been caused distress. Miss X also says she has been financially disadvantaged by not being paid for the care she provides Mr Z.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr Z has had a care plan for many years. Miss X receives direct payments to pay for his care and she also provides some of this herself.
Miss X complained to the Council in October 2023 about the amount of time the Council was taking to complete Mr Z’s new care assessment. A Council officer responded and when commenting on the fact that the assessment process had now begun, expressed the hope that Miss X and Mr Z would ‘continue to cooperate’.
Miss X was unhappy with the officer’s wording and complained about that and the other issues in paragraph 1 and 2 above.
The Council responded and: confirmed Miss X and Mr Z had always cooperated in the assessment process and apologised for implying otherwise; explained the person who managed someone’s direct payments could not also be their personal assistant unless there were exceptional circumstances. It said that was not the case with Mr Z and explained why; and apologised for the continuing delays in carrying our Mr Z’s assessment. It said it has allocated them a new social worker who would work with Mr Z and Miss X to determine Mr Z’s needs and the best way to communicate with him.
Delays in Mr Z’s assessment If we investigated this complaint, it is likely we would find the Council at fault because it has delayed in completing Mr Z’s reassessment. We therefore asked the Council to resolve the complaint early and to remedy the injustice it had caused by carrying out Mr Z’s assessment within one month of this final decision.
The Council agreed to resolve the complaint in this way. It has already said it will determine the best way to communicate with him when it does so. Therefore, further investigation is unlikely to achieve anything more.
Allowing Miss X to be Mr Z’s personal assistant (PA) We will not investigate this complaint. The Council acted in line with the Care Act 2014 and Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014 when it told Miss X she could not be Mrs Z’s personal assistant whilst she was managing Mr Z’s direct payments. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
Final decision
We have upheld Miss X’s complaint that the Council delayed in carrying out her son’s social care assessment. The Council has now agreed to resolve it by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice experienced by Mr Z. We will not investigate Miss X’s other complaint that the Council refused to allow her to be Mr Z’s personal assistant. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman