The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed in its duties to her under the Care Act 2014, as an adult with care and support needs. We have ended our investigation. The Ombudsman has already considered issues raised by Ms X previously. We do not consider Ms X is raising any new issues we should investigate. Our view is further investigation will not result in a finding of fault, or a different or worthwhile outcome.
The complaint
Ms X complains the Council failed in its duties to her under the Care Act 2014, as an adult with care and support needs, in 2022 and 2023. She says the Council: wrongly refused to meet her care and support needs; did not properly consider a safeguarding referral made in September 2022 about an NHS service inappropriately restricting Ms X’s access to the service; and took part in a multi-agency meeting about Ms X in December 2022 without her knowledge or consent. In this meeting it breached Ms X’s confidentiality and shared false allegations and derogatory comments about her. This led to various organisations restricting Ms X’s access to services.
Ms X says the lack of care and support to meet her needs has affected her physical and mental health and left her isolated and trapped at home. When Ms X brought this complaint to us, she said she wanted the Council to ensure her needs were met, by providers outside its area as she has lost trust in the Council. During our consideration of the complaint, Ms X said she now only wants the Council to delete its records about her and stop sharing false information about her with other organisations.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended) 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; there is another body better placed to consider the complaint; further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants; 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 Ms X, documentation and comments from the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Jurisdiction .
Ms X and the Council had opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
Background
Ms X has various conditions affecting her mental and physical health. In August 2017, the Council assessed Ms X’s needs for care and support under the Care Act.
In 2018, we investigated a complaint by Ms X. Part of this complaint was that the Council had placed a warning flag on Ms X’s Council record, which she said included wrong information about her and was affecting her access to services. When responding to this complaint, we told Ms X we would not consider this issue again.
In 2020, we investigated a further complaint from Ms X, case ref 20 014 140. In early-2021, we found fault with the Council in how it had assessed Ms X’s care and support needs and explained costs to her following its 2017 needs assessment. The Council agreed to re-assess Ms X’s needs, and that it would waive any charges for care and support for the first 12 months.
In late-2021, the Council re-assessed Ms X’s needs and decided she was eligible for care and support. This assessment was based on a self-assessment completed by Ms X. Shortly after this, Ms X made another complaint to the Ombudsman, case ref 21 013 858. She said the Council had restricted her from accessing care and support and shared information about her with other agencies without her consent. In September 2022, we completed our investigation. We decided the following.
The Council had not sought to restrict Ms X’s access to care and support. It had sought to make progress with care and support planning following our decision in early 2021 and had made efforts to help Ms X engage with the process. It had decided Ms X had eligible needs and explained to her what the options were for care and support to meet those needs. It had clarified to her that some of the support she was seeking was NHS support which it could not arrange, so directed her to her GP to seek a referral.
There was some fault by the Council. It had delayed in seeking a new independent advocate for Ms X to support her with the care planning process when the relationship with her previous advocate broke down. This caused Ms X avoidable frustration and inconvenience. The Council agreed to apologise and arrange a replacement advocate if Ms X agreed to engage with the process.
We should not investigate whether the Council shared information about Ms X without her consent because the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) was better placed to consider a complaint about alleged breaches in personal data.
Throughout 2023, Ms X raised further concerns and complaints with the Council. She again said the Council had shared confidential information about her, shared wrong information about her, and restricted her access to care and support services.
Ms X brought a complaint to the Ombudsman in mid-2023, case ref 23 003 327. We told Ms X we would not investigate this complaint. In our consideration of this complaint, we decided the following.
We could not investigate a complaint about an assessment carried out by an NHS Trust. Any complaint Ms X had about this should be raised with the NHS Trust, not the Council. If she was dissatisfied with the Trust response, she could then complain to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).
We would not investigate Ms X’s concern that historical data about her was still showing on her Council record and preventing her access to services. The Council had explained to Ms X how historical data presented in its systems, and that information she was concerned about was not visible to staff. We were satisfied with this explanation and that it did not suggest evidence of fault which would be worthwhile investigating.
Following our decision, Ms X asked for a review. During the review period, she raised concerns about how the Council considered a safeguarding referral, as described at paragraph 1(b) of this decision. We asked the Council about this and it told us it did not consider this via its safeguarding procedures because there was no allegation of abuse or neglect. It instead referred the information to Ms X’s social worker, who had continued to try and engage with Ms X. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We do not investigate safeguarding decisions made by the Council where there is no evidence of fault, simply because a complainant disagrees with them. We decided we should not investigate this further because there was insufficient evidence of fault to justify us investigating.
Ms X then brought this complaint to the Ombudsman in December 2023, as described at paragraph 1.
My findings
I am satisfied that since our investigation into case 210 138 58 in 2022, the Council has continued to make clear to Ms X that: she is eligible for care and support; it has not restricted her from any services, or told other agencies they should do so; it can reopen Ms X’s case, arrange support for her from an advocate, and carry out a re-assessment of her needs, if she is now willing to engage with the process; and the first 12 months of any care and support arranged to meet her eligible needs would be without charge.
Ms X already raised her concerns about the September 2022 safeguarding referral when we were considering case 23 003 327, in 2023. We decided we should not investigate this further because there was insufficient evidence of fault to justify us investigating. We will not consider this again.
The Council has explained to Ms X that the December 2022 multi-agency meeting resulted from a referral from her GP and is separate to the Council’s assessment of her care and support needs under the Care Act 2014. It has explained what happened at the meeting and what information was shared. Ms X’s concerns about this meeting are the same as the concerns she has repeatedly raised across several Council and Ombudsman complaints.
Ms X is of the view the Council holds wrong information about her on its records, inappropriately shares this information, and that this results in her not being able to access services she needs. We already considered these issues about information sharing as follows.
In 2022, in case 210 138 58, we decided the ICO was better placed to investigate a complaint about alleged breaches in personal data.
In 2023, in case 23 003 327, we decided we would not investigate the issue of historical data held in the Council’s records because we were unlikely to find fault if we investigated further.
There have been historical issues and faults which have led to Ms X being mistrustful of the Council. However, I am satisfied we have already considered all these issues and recommended a remedy for any injustice caused by fault. I do not consider Ms X is raising any new issues we should investigate.
We will not now revisit any previous Ombudsman decisions. We have a review process which Ms X had the opportunity to use for our previous decisions. We considered any review requests from Ms X to decide if the grounds for review were met and this did not result in changes to our decisions.
My view remains that we would be unlikely to find fault if we were to investigate the issues raised by Ms X further. I do not consider further investigation by the Ombudsman would result in a finding of fault, or a different or worthwhile outcome. Also, Ms X has now told us the only outcome she is seeking is for the Council to delete its records about her and stop sharing information which she says is false, with other organisations. The ICO is the body designated to investigate complaints about personal data and information sharing, and so is better placed to consider this. Therefore, it would not be an efficient use of the Ombudsman’s limited resources to investigate this further.
Final decision
I have ended my investigation. The Ombudsman has already considered issues raised by Ms X previously. I do not consider Ms X is raising any new issues we should investigate. My view is further investigation would not result in a finding of fault, or a different or worthwhile outcome.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman