London borough failed to properly assess man’s care and support needs in accordance with legislation

The man behind the complaint was Mr Y, aged in his early twenties. He has a learning disability, autism and communication difficulties, which are described as severe. He lives with Mrs X, who is his main carer.

Until February 2024, Mr Y was in formal education and had an EHCP in place. However, after this he stopped attending education and ceased engaging in community activities.

A social worker (assessor) commenced a Care Act assessment in March 2024. The Ombudsman said: “The assessor records Mr Y to be a student in education, with a college placement two days a week, but that he had not attended college since February 2024, and had disengaged with activities outside the home.

“Mr Y was reported to require support with all activities of daily living and is reported to rely heavily on Mrs X, his main carer, for support. Mr Y lacks safety awareness and requires constant supervision. Mrs X reported caring for Mr Y had become more challenging and she found caring for him “…daunting, even with the support of a PA…”.”

In June 2024, the social worker met with an officer from the special educational needs team. As Mr Y was not attending education, his EHCP ceased, and Mr Y’s care became the sole responsibility of adult services.

Mrs X asked social services for a copy of Mr Y’s assessment and support plan. When she received it, she noticed the support plan remained unchanged from the previous year, which was education related, with support being spilt into term and non-term time.

Mrs X contacted the social worker to ask if she could use the whole of the allocated support hours. The social worker said no, and said Mrs X could only use 16 support hours per week, and if she used more than this it would have to be funded privately or from Mr Y’s benefits.

The social worker said as Mr Y had not been utilising all his support hours, 16.5 weekly hours was “sufficient”. Mrs X said she was not using the previous 22.5 non-term time support hours because she was told she could not, and as Mr Y did not currently leave the house, he required more support within the home.

In July 2024, Mrs X sought support from Mr Y’s GP. The GP wrote to social services to request increased support for Mr Y to assist with personal care and medication prompts.

The council responded to Mrs X saying it was not the GP’s role to determine the amount of support Mr Y required, and the requested support could be accessed from the allocated support hours.

The social worker gave Mrs X the details for a service completing carers assessments. A carers assessment was completed in July 2024. Mrs X told the assessor she believed some of the support she needed was support that should be incorporated in Mr Y’s care and support plan.

Following the carers assessment, Mrs X did not receive a support plan.

The Ombudsman investigated and concluded that in this case, the council “failed on a number of levels to act in accordance with the Care Act”.

The report noted: “The law is clear, a council must assess total extent of a person’s needs and produce a care and support plan showing how these needs will be met. […] The end of education was a significant change in Mr Y’s life. This is not reflected in the Council’s assessment.

“Mr Y is an adult, as such, the entirety of his needs is the legal responsibility of the Council, not that of Mrs X. The council failed to assess which of Mr Y’s needs Mrs X was able and willing to meet over a seven-day period.”

The Ombudsman warned that councils cannot rely on carers/relatives providing unpaid care, and must determine the willingness and ability of any relatives/carers to provide such care.

The Ombudsman added: “The council is treating Mrs X as though she is responsible for providing support to Mr Y, and the council is responsible only for providing her with breaks from her caring role.

“Mrs X is not saying she does not wish to support Mr Y, but that he needs more support than he is receiving. She is an unpaid carer for most of Mr Y’s care, acting out of love and care. This has placed her under increased strain, which she herself describes as exhausting.”

To remedy the injustice caused, the Ombudsman recommended the council to, within four weeks of the decision:

• commence a reassessment of Mr Y’s care needs and produce a support plan which reflects his needs over a seven-day period, and explain in detail how these needs will be met, in consultation and agreement with Mrs X;
• calculate any loss of services to Mr Y since February 2024 and determine a suitable remedy for the injustice caused;
• complete a fresh financial assessment and consider all relevant disability related expenditure;
• allocate Mr Y a personal budget sufficient to meet his needs;
• review Mrs X’s carer assessment and produce a support plan setting out how these needs will be met;
• apologise to Mrs X, and make a symbolic payment of £1,000 to acknowledge the stress, distress, time, and trouble pursuing her complaint with the council and the Ombudsman;
• provide evidence of the above to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman further recommended the council consider any training needs of officers completing or overseeing needs assessments under the Care Act, within three months of the decision.

A Lewisham Council spokesperson said: “We have accepted all the recommendations made by the Ombudsman and will take forward the actions detailed. We have apologised to Mr Y and Mrs X, and acknowledge that we fell short of the service expected of us.”

Lottie Winson