Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has provided care and support to Mr B. This is because the Council has remedied the injustice to Mr B caused by fault and further investigation could not add to the Council’s responses or make a different finding of the kind Mr B wants. Further investigation by us would not be proportionate.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained about the care and support he received from the Council. Mr B says;

• he has not received a refund for a non-chargeable service and is owed £433.68.
• he is being discriminated against and has been labelled as a Persistent Unreasonable Complainant.
• he did not consent to having a joint assessment.
• he was inappropriately referred to the Mental Health Services.
• the Council’s final report did not change even though he provided responses to it.
• he is not receiving appropriate care and support.

2. Mr B says he wants the report looked at again, his money refunded, the Council to ensure it has his consent for any joint assessments, an assessment for personalisation, change to the computer system, evidence that he is a Persistent Unreasonable Complainant, and says he should not be labelled as such, apologies, his carer service reinstated and a direct payment backdated to 2017, a referral to the joint team, financial compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council investigated Mr B’s complaints and, although Mr B disagrees with some of the outcomes, some elements of Mr B’s complaints were upheld. They were in the main in relation to communication and delay. Further investigation could not make a different finding and would not be proportionate.
7. The Council’s independent investigation provided case note entries of communications and found no evidence of a disjointed service or inconsistencies with support. Mr B requested a change in Social Worker because he was unhappy with the outcome of his review. The Council confirmed it did not undertake a joint assessment and evidenced that he and his ex-partner’s assessments were completed separately. It explained the support plans are combined due to IT restrictions, and although Mr B wants the IT system changed so his support plan is separate to his ex-partner’s, we could not achieve this. The Council confirmed Mr B’s partner does not provide him with support, however, there are elements of them supporting each other for example meal preparation and nutrition. We could not add to this point. If Mr B want his carers role reinstated he can ask the Council to undertake a new carer’s assessment.
8. The Council partially upheld Mr B’s complaint regarding lack of evidence about whether his views had been included in the assessment and upheld his complaint that he was not provided with copies of his assessments before February 2021. It said, in agreement with Mr B, a further review was undertaken with the Ongoing Assessment and Intervention Team and the Mental Health Team so it could properly assess Mr B and decide how best to support him. We could achieve no more even if we investigated.
9. The Council investigated Mr B’s complaints about paying for services he cancelled between June and August and agreed he had overpaid £442.68. The Council has confirmed this has now been refunded.
10. I will not comment on Mr B’s complaint about him being classed as a Persistent and Unreasonable Complainant, this is because we considered this complaint separately and cannot consider the same matters again.
11. The Council upheld some of the complaints and has agreed to remedy the complainant’s injustice by apologising and implementing recommendations. We are satisfied with the Council’s actions to remedy the fault and will not investigate further. While Mr B disagrees with some aspects of the independent investigators report we will not investigate. The Council has confirmed it has assessed Mr B’s needs. Mr B can ask the Council to put a copy of his views on file to lie alongside those of the Councils outlining what he remains unhappy with.
12. Mr B has further complained that he has not received an assessment by the joint team and does not receive support. The Council has confirmed Mr B has had an assessment carried out by the Ongoing Assessment and Intervention Team which identified Mr B has eligible care needs. The Council says Mr B does not have an active support plan in place because he did not engage with it and confirmed his case is currently closed.
13. We could not add to this or make a different finding. It is for the Council to decide who should carry out assessments. There is no evidence of fault in this case, as the Council has assessed Mr B and identified that he has eligible care needs. If Mr B wants to engage with the Council he can contact it to agree how best to support the needs identified in the assessment.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because further investigation by us would not be proportionate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman