Ombudsman tells city council to backdate direct payments and issue reminders to staff on care and support statutory guidance

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has found Bristol City Council at fault for a delay in finalising a care assessment, delay in responding to a shared lives carer’s complaint and delay in completing a review.

Outlining the background to the case, the Ombudsman said Mrs X, a shared lives carer, complained on behalf of herself and the person she cares for, Mr Z.

Mrs X said the council failed to pay direct payments in 2022; that Mr Z’s respite cover was “inadequate”, the council delayed completing a care and support assessment; the council’s complaints response was delayed, and her shared lives agreement had ended.

The Ombudsman noted that under the shared lives agreement, carers are entitled to 28 days respite a year.

In this case, the Court of Protection agreed two days per month respite, because the shared lives respite agreement was not suitable for Mr Z.

In September 2021, Mr Z said he had found a personal assistant (PA) to provide respite care when Mrs X was not there. The council told Mr Z he could be supported with his direct payments (DP’s) by a third party (B) with payroll, the report noted.

Mrs X told the council she was going away. She said she had arranged for the PA to begin his work.

Following this, the council issued a one-off DP to Mr Z in September 2021. Mr Z confirmed he had received it, and confirmed he would pay the PA for the respite cover.

In December 2021, Mr Z said he would like to receive on-going DPs to fund regular respite.

The council said it asked Mr Z to evidence the DP was used to pay the PA in December 2021. The council told the Ombudsman that in response to this, Mr Z asked for a new social worker.

In March 2022, the council told B it was waiting to meet with Mr Z to discuss his ongoing care needs before it could agree to ongoing DP’s, the report noted.

However, a review of Mr Z’s care needs was not held until October 2022. The Ombudsman found this was fault. He said: “There is a lack of evidence to support what action the council was taking to complete the review”.

Turning to part B of the complaint, the report noted that Mrs X said Mr Z’s respite cover was inadequate. The support plan states Mr Z is supported by Mrs X and his PA two days per month.

Mrs X told the council Mr Z required 24-hour care. But the council told Mrs X in November 2022 it had no evidence this was required.

Not finding the council at fault, the Ombudsman said: “The council has evidenced it has considered the request for 24-hour care. It has clearly explained what needed to happen going forward. That is a decision the council is entitled to make. Where a council has followed the correct process, considered all relevant information and given clear reasons for its decision, we cannot criticise it.”

Turning to part C of the complaint, the Ombudsman noted that the guidance states assessments should be carried out over an “appropriate and reasonable” timescale.

Once the assessment was completed in October 2022, the council told Mrs X in December 2022 it could be finalised once Mr Z was happy with it.

Mrs X provided the council with her comments in January 2023. The council made Mrs X aware in April 2023 it was waiting for feedback from Mr Z before it could process the payment.

The Ombudsman’s investigation found that “between January and April 2023 there is a drift in this case.”

The Ombudsman concluded: “I do recognise that this was not all due to fault by the council as it was waiting for Mr Z’s comments. But the council does have a duty to ensure the assessment is carried out over an appropriate and reasonable timescale. We would expect councils to have oversight of this. This is fault and not in line with the guidance. The council said this has now been finalised and payments will be backdated.”

Turning to part D of the complaint, the Ombudsman noted that Mrs X complained to the council in November 2022, and the council responded in April 2023.

The council’s policy says people should receive a response at stage one within 15 working days. Therefore the council’s response was outside of this timeframe. The Ombudsman therefore found this was fault.

To remedy the injustice caused, the Ombudsman recommended the council to:

• apologise to Mr Z and Mrs X for the fault identified in this statement;
• make arrangements to backdate the 2022 and 2023 direct payments;
• pay Mr Z £150 to acknowledge the distress caused to him by the faults identified; and
• pay Mrs X £350 for the avoidable distress, time and trouble caused by the council’s actions.

The Ombudsman noted that following the investigation, Bristol City Council had agreed to issue written reminders to relevant staff to ensure they are aware of the care and support statutory guidance, which states:

• Assessment should be carried out over an appropriate and reasonable timescale taking into account the urgency of needs and a consideration of any fluctuation in those needs. Councils should inform the individual of an indicative timescale over which their assessment will be conducted and keep the person informed throughout the assessment process; and
• In addition to monitoring direct payments generally to ensure they are being used to meet care and support needs, the Regulations set out that local authorities must also review the making of the direct payment within the first 6 months of making the first payment.

A spokesperson from Bristol City Council said: “The council acknowledges and accepts the findings of the Ombudsman’s investigation and is acting on the recommendations within the given deadline.”

Lottie Winson