A Lancashire council, whose taxi licensing team could not cope with the high volume of out-of-area applications it received, has been criticised by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman after a woman could not work for nearly four months while she waited for her paperwork.

Taxi drivers can work for pre-booked purposes in any area of the country once they have been granted a licence and councils can set their own criteria for awarding those licences. The father of one woman complained that Rossendale Borough Council’s licensing policy meant it received a high volume of out-of-area applications, to the detriment of those wanting to work in the borough.

The father told the Ombudsman his daughter was unable to work for 16 weeks while waiting for the council to process her licence. She had already secured a job with a local firm, but could not work until she had the correct documents.

When the man tried to complain to the council about his daughter’s treatment, the council refused to deal with him so he took his complaint to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman’s investigation found the length of time the council took to process the woman’s application did not amount to good administrative practice. There was no suggestion the delay in issuing the woman’s licence was for any legitimate reason.

In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the council said the backlog was due to a significant increase in the number of new applicants, particularly from outside its area. The council has since allocated more staff to its licensing unit and has also introduced pre-requisite assessments and policies for those not intending to use their licence within the borough’s boundaries.

Michael King, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said:

“While I recognise councils need to go through the proper process and carry out the relevant safety checks before awarding licences, I consider the time taken in this case to be overly long.

“The council should have foreseen that its decision not to place restrictions on drivers from outside the borough applying for licences would have had an effect on the volume of applications it received. It should have allocated sufficient resources to deal with the demand earlier.

“I am pleased to see that the council has now put in place measures to prevent the situation reoccurring, however I would now urge the council to consider and implement the remedy I have recommended.”

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s role is to remedy injustice and share learning from investigations to improve local public, and adult social care, services.

In this case, to remedy the situation, the council should pay the daughter £350 in recognition of the uncertainty and time and trouble she has been put to.

It should also identify and review any other complaints received about delays in processing taxi licence applications under its previous policy. It should identify any other applicants in a similar position to this case who are able to show they suffered a significant injustice and consider how it should remedy this.

A council which showed ‘scant respect’ for providing an agreed remedy to a vulnerable young person has been criticised for a second time by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

In 2016, Northamptonshire County Council had agreed to improve services for a young woman who had learning difficulties after failing to provide her with the proper school transport, home care and respite.

In that complaint, the girl’s mother told the Ombudsman the problems they encountered meant the daughter lost at least six months’ of education in her last year at school. This contributed to setting back her progress towards adult life, including being able to move on to post-18 activities and education.

Following that complaint, the council promised to apologise to the family, pay them a financial remedy and liaise with the family to find out whether they could be offered any additional services to help the daughter make up lost progress.

Despite the council’s agreement to carry out the Ombudsman’s recommendations within a three month deadline, the Chief Executive failed even to apologise.

It was not until the family complained again to the Ombudsman in 2017 that the council began to provide the previously agreed remedies.

Michael King, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said:

“I have issued this report against Northamptonshire County Council because I take any breach of an agreement with my findings seriously.

“The county council had ample time to honour its remedies with this family, and their failure to do so has only amplified the injustice.

“People can only have trust in their local councils if they carry out actions which they have promised to do, without prompting.

“While the council has now put in place three of my four recommendations, and is working on providing the fourth, I am disappointed this only took place after further intervention from me.”

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s role is to remedy injustice and share learning from investigations to improve local public, and adult social care, services.

In this case, to remedy the complaint, the council will contact the family about the previous recommendation to consider whether it could offer anything more to help the daughter make up lost progress.

It will also pay the daughter £150 and the mother £250 in recognition of its failure to provide a timely remedy.

It has also agreed to monitor its new procedure for dealing with Ombudsman recommendations.

A Warwickshire man, who had suffered a stroke, was prevented from living independently for too long because two councils failed to follow correct procedures, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has found.

Warwickshire County Council made assumptions about the man’s capacity to make decisions about where he wanted to live and about what property would be suitable for him, without carrying out the proper assessments. Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council delayed considering his housing application.

The man was in his forties when he had a stroke in December 2012. He was placed in a care home in June 2013 as he required 24 hour support, but he was unhappy as he wanted to live independently.

The county council met with the man in early 2014 to discuss moving from the care home and considered extra care housing to be his best option. However the borough council did not have extra care schemes and its supported housing was generally for people older than 55. The social worker discussed with the man the option of moving to another care home with more access to the community and activities, but it did not have a place available.

The man’s psychologist asked whether a move to his own property was an option, but the social worker said the man lacked mental capacity regarding care needs and accommodation. No formal capacity assessment was carried out to determine this.

The man remained in the care home until March 2015, when he was hospitalised with an infection. He refused to return to the care home when he was ready for discharge the following month, still wanting to live independently. His social worker believed he lacked insight into the kind of support he needed but no formal mental capacity assessment was carried out.

A second social worker became involved and felt the man did have capacity to make decisions. This was backed by the man’s consultant who assessed him as having ‘full capacity’.

He agreed to move to a different care home as a temporary measure in May 2015. In November 2015 the borough council’s extra care housing panel rejected his application for extra care housing as he did not meet the age criteria, his needs could be met in the community and he did not meet its exceptional criterion of a rapidly deteriorating condition.

The man continued to contact the borough council over the following months and bid on different properties, but it was not until December 2016 that he finally gained a tenancy.

The man complained about his treatment by both councils to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman investigation found the county council failed to consider properly the man’s ability to make decisions until it made a proper capacity assessment in May 2015. It fundamentally failed to support the man through the care planning process. It delayed considering all the options available. By focusing solely on the belief the man’s best option was extra care housing when none was available in his preferred area, it delayed finding appropriate accommodation for him. The investigation also found the county council missed numerous opportunities to assess the man’s capacity at times when key decisions were made about his care and accommodation.

The Ombudsman found fault with the way the borough council failed to tell the county council about its decision to remove the man from its waiting list in December 2014. It also delayed making his later housing application live: it accepted his application in June 2015 but he was unable to bid on properties till December 2015. The borough council also raised the man’s expectations he might be allocated extra care housing, despite the man never meeting its criteria. It failed to properly consider whether the man may be suitable for sheltered accommodation due to his exceptional circumstances before July 2016.

Both councils failed to take an overview of the man’s needs and to work together to ensure the best possible outcome for him.

Michael King, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said:

“Mental capacity assessments should be carried out to determine whether people are able to make proper decisions about themselves and their care. It is not enough for social workers to deny people the opportunity to make their own life decisions and simply act on their belief that something is in a person’s best interests without making a formal assessment.

“In this case the man made clear his unhappiness at being left in a care home when he wanted to live in the community, and has had the injustice of not knowing whether he could have moved to live independently sooner had both authorities acted appropriately.

“Both authorities have agreed to my recommendations, and I hope that they will fully take on board the learning from this case to ensure others avoid being affected by similar issues in the future.”

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s role is to remedy injustice and share learning from investigations to improve local public, and adult social care, services.

To remedy the complaint the county council has agreed to apologise to the man and pay him £2,000 to recognise the frustration and distress caused by the delays in carrying out mental capacity assessments and not considering fully all the options available to him. It has also agreed to review its practices to ensure that mental capacity assessments are carried out at the appropriate times and documented properly.

The borough council has agreed to apologise to the man and pay him £300 for the frustration and time and trouble caused by the delays in dealing with his housing application.

Additionally the two councils have agreed to review how they work together to ensure that in future they provide a timely and co-ordinated approach to cases involving social care and housing.

We have changed our name to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

We have done this to help people know that we look at complaints about all areas of adult social care – including privately arranged or funded care.

Nothing has changed about the way we work. We have always investigated complaints about councils’ adult care services, and since 2010 we were given extra powers to investigate registered adult social care providers.

We have called ourselves Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman for some time in the adult social care sector – this change is about making it clear for everyone.

If you are someone with a complaint:

• You don’t need to do anything. If you have an existing complaint with us nothing has changed. If you are interested in making a new complaint, see How to Complain.

If you are a council:

• Nothing has changed. We will write to your complaints team in due course to provide an up-to-date logo for including on your website or in complaints procedures.

If you are a social care provider:

• Nothing has changed. We are still the Ombudsman for all adult social care complaints. We will write to care providers we have on record in due course, to provide an up-to-date logo for including on your website or in complaints procedures. If you would like to be added to our mailing list to receive this, and other relevant updates, please email us at lgonews@lgo.org.uk
• To find out more about our role in investigating complaints, visit our Adult Social Care pages. To download useful information to help you deal with complaints effectively see our Resources for care providers page.

Our name change will be phased in when documents and material need updating – we are not undertaking a large-scale rebrand. Therefore you will still see references to the Local Government Ombudsman in some of our materials.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman remedies injustice and improves local public services. Our investigations change services for the better. We share the findings so councils and care providers can learn and improve.

Worcestershire County Council has been criticised by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman after a care home it contracted with charged a vulnerable dementia patient for care it could not prove it had provided.

The woman had been placed in Haresbrook Park care home when she was discharged from hospital in January 2015. The Ombudsman found the council failed to assess the woman’s needs properly, including her mental capacity, following her move. Because of this flawed assessment, the council wrongly regarded the woman as capable of self-funding her own care. Although the woman had the savings to fund her own care, she had no capacity to do so and no-one to manage her finances. Despite this, and contrary to the law, the council stopped paying for the woman’s care.

The care home upped its fees by £700 a week from £500 to £1,200 three months after the council stopped funding the woman’s care. It also backdated the increase - something the Ombudsman was particularly critical of as there was no evidence the care home provided any increased care for the backdated period. It therefore charged a vulnerable woman several thousands of pounds for a service it never delivered.

The home claimed the increase was due to the woman’s care needs, but when challenged could provide the Ombudsman with little evidence the extra care was either needed or delivered.

Additionally, there was nothing in the home’s own contract to suggest the woman’s fees could be reviewed mid-year.

The woman’s son was unable to pay for his mother’s care as he did not have access to her funds. He contacted the county council, which reassessed his mother. By the end of June 2016 the council had agreed to pay the care provider at its standard rate, but this still left the woman to pay the difference. The council failed to assume responsibility to either pay for all the care charges or challenge the care provider’s increase in care charges. It should not have left the son unsupported when the provider continued to invoice him.

The son then asked the care home to reassess his mother as he thought she was more settled and did not need one-to-one care. The home said she could not be left alone and needed the extra support, but could not provide any record of the support it actually gave his mother when he requested it.

At the same time the son attempted to become a court-appointed deputy to manage her financial affairs. But his mother died before this was completed. As she died without leaving a will he then had to gain probate. The care home chased the family and threatened to refer the outstanding debt to solicitors following the woman’s death even before probate had been granted.

Michael King, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said:

“Worcestershire County Council remained responsible for this woman’s care throughout her time at the care home. Neither the woman nor her family were in any position to arrange her care for her, and were certainly in no position to pay for it.

“Had social workers assessed her needs properly from the outset, much of the distress caused to the family could have been avoided. Instead the council left the woman and her family to deal with the care home alone.

“I am pleased the council has agreed with my recommendations and now urge it to learn from this case to ensure others are not similarly affected.”

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s role is to remedy injustice and share learning from investigations to improve local public, and adult social care, services.

In this case, to remedy the complaint the council has agreed to apologise to the son and pay him £1,000 in recognition of the distress caused by its actions. It will also arrange for the care home to reissue invoices for the care provided between March and August 2015, removing the £700 a week it made for one-to-one care. The council should ensure whatever credit is outstanding is refunded to the woman’s estate.

The Ombudsman has also made a number of recommendations for the county council to improve working with the hospital and social workers and should review whether it works with the care provider in future.