Council criticised for failures relating to handling of care and support needs

The investigation in question found the local authority at fault for failing to respond to contact, properly consider safeguarding referrals, carry out required assessments, take “reasonable steps” to arrange appropriate care support, and ensure the man’s housing adaptation was completed.

The woman behind the complaint, Ms Y, complained on behalf of Mr X about the council’s handling of his care and support needs, as well as its failure to oversee the completion of a housing adaptation, leaving the work unfinished.

Specifically, she said that:

1. Mr X did not receive any care support between November 2022 and April 2023;
2. since November 2023, he has not received any care support;
3. he has had multiple different social workers allocated to him;
4. concerns about his hoarding have not been addressed;
5. home adaptations that began in December 2023 remain incomplete; and
6. the council provided poor communication to both Mr X and Ms Y.

The Ombudsman investigated and found that Mr X had been without a formal care package since November 2023.

The report noted: “The council has acknowledged that since December 2023, it did not take appropriate steps to meet his assessed needs, or to explore alternative support options. This is fault.”

The Ombudsman added: “I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, whether the council would have successfully secured another care agency, whether Mr X would have been eligible for alternative support, or whether he would have accepted this support.

“However, the council’s failure to act has created uncertainty about whether Mr X could have been receiving the support he was assessed as needing.”

The report also found the local authority failed to review or reassess Mr X’s care needs since early 2023, describing this as fault.

Turning to hoarding concerns and safeguarding referrals, the Ombudsman found that between September 2023 and September 2024, the council received ten safeguarding referrals from a range of sources, many of which were from other professionals.

However, no action was taken in response to any of these referrals.

The Ombudsman noted: “This is fault and potentially left Mr X at risk of harm. It also directly contradicts the council’s response to complaint 1 in August 2024, where it stated appropriate action had been taken. This inconsistency is further fault.”

The Ombudsman added: “It is particularly concerning that despite these failures, the council’s final response to complaint 3 found no fault in how the safeguarding referrals were handled. This response failed to recognise or address the clear failings in how these concerns were dealt with.”

Looking at the home adaptation complaint, the report observed no progress on Mr X’s bathroom adaptation since April 2024, leaving Mr X without proper washing facilities, only a sink and toilet, since December 2023.

Finally, the report criticised the council for its poor communication, noting that between February 2023 and October 2023, Mr X and Ms Y contacted the council 21 times. However, on only one occasion did Mr X’s allocated worker return his contact.

The Ombudsman said: “The council failed to acknowledge or respond to Ms Y’s April complaint and delayed acknowledging her May complaint. Its June complaint response also failed to fully address the issues raised. This is fault.

“While I am satisfied there are no outstanding complaint points, it is concerning that the council’s complaint responses showed no evidence of learning or service improvement. It appears that only through this investigation has the council begun to reflect on its failings.”

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

• apologise to Mr X
• pay Mr X £1,000 to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused; and
• complete a care needs assessment for Mr X and consider any further assessments or referrals as appropriate.

The Ombudsman added: “Within three months of my final decision, the council has agreed to issue a briefing(s) note to all relevant staff using this case as a case study.

“The briefing(s) should reinforce the following expectations:

• Safeguarding telephone calls must be handled appropriately, with staff responding proportionately to each concern, regardless of whether the individual is a frequent caller.
• Staff must apply the correct criteria when responding to safeguarding concerns, including proper consideration of Section 42 of the Care Act 2014 where appropriate.
• All communications and decisions related to safeguarding concerns must be accurately recorded.
• Referrers should be included in the information-gathering process when responding to safeguarding referrals.
• Each case should be assessed individually. The allocation or pending allocation of a social worker must not prevent appropriate escalation of concerns.
• Assessment visits must be documented promptly, with any agreed actions carried out without delay.
• Contacts from individuals must be responded to by the allocated worker promptly.
• Where difficulties arise in sourcing an appropriate care provider, staff must continue efforts to meet the individual’s assessed needs. If all options are exhausted, the matter should be escalated appropriately.
• When care cannot be provided, a risk assessment must be completed and the matter escalated. This should include consideration of alternative legal frameworks and care solutions.
• Multi-disciplinary team meetings must be formally minuted, with clear action plans recorded.
• Where difficulties arise impacting the progression of DFG works. If all options are exhausted, the matter should be escalated appropriately.”

A Hampshire County Council spokesperson said: “We always try to do our very best to get things right first time for Hampshire residents, and we take any issues raised very seriously. Where we haven’t been able to resolve things directly with members of the public, we work closely with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) to address the issue, learn from our mistakes and improve our services along the way.

"In this instance, we have apologised to the individuals affected and proposed a number of actions to further strengthen our practices in the areas covered within the report. We are pleased that the Ombudsman has confirmed that our suggested actions are appropriate and in line with its guidance.”

Lottie Winson