Council at fault for not properly consulting autistic man about who to involve in his care review and for not completing review in “person-centred” way: Ombudsman
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has found Peterborough City Council at fault for failing to properly consult an autistic man about who to involve in his care review and for not completing the review in a “person-centred” way.
The council has agreed to pay £200 to acknowledge the uncertainty caused.
The Ombudsman said the complainant, Mr X, complained the council excluded him from the care process for his brother, Mr Y, and failed to act on concerns he raised regarding his brother’s care provider.
Mr X also complained the council “unnecessarily” appointed an independent advocate for his brother when he was able to represent him.
Mr Y is autistic and lives in supported living accommodation. At his care review in 2016 the council noted Mr Y declined to have a family member present. It also noted that Mr Y “will often give the answer that he thinks you want to hear [...] he can respond to facial expression to gauge what he thinks is the right answer. He can give variable responses to the same questions in close succession”.
Mr X contacted the council in late 2022 as he wanted to attend Mr Y’s next care review meeting.
In November 2022, the council reviewed Mr Y’s care needs. The review noted Mr Y did not want to attend the review and was happy for the manager of the supported living scheme to speak for him. It noted Mr Y did not want any of his family involved in the review.
However, Mr X said he was concerned his brother had been “manipulated” to say this, the Ombudsman report noted.
The council then appointed a social worker to help understand Mr Y’s views.
According to the Ombudsman, the social worker visited Mr Y twice in January 2023 and confirmed he wanted Mr X to attend his reviews.
The social worker was satisfied Mr Y had capacity to “understand, retain, use and weigh up information”, however the social worker had concerns that what he conveyed depended on who he was speaking to, the report noted.
The social worker spoke with Mr Y about having an advocate who was someone neutral who could express Mr Y’s views and wishes. Mr Y agreed to this.
In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the council explained it was now “more aware” of Mr Y’s tendency to say what he perceived others want to hear.
The Ombudsman said: “It also acknowledged that the review completed in November 2022 was not completed in a person-centred way as Mr Y did not attend. It said it has since revised its processes so a review will now only be completed without the person being present if it has been assessed as being in the person’s best interests.”
The Ombudsman concluded that there was no fault in the way Peterborough responded to Mr X’s concerns or in the decision to appoint an independent advocate. However, the council was at fault for “not properly consulting Mr Y about who to involve in his review and for not completing the review in a person-centred way”.
To remedy the injustice caused, the council agreed to:
- Apologise to Mr X for the frustration and distress caused by the council’s failure to properly consult Mr Y on who should be involved in his review.
- Pay Mr Y £200 to acknowledge the uncertainty caused by the failure to complete his November 2022 review in a person-centred way.
- Provide evidence that it has reminded relevant staff: to obtain consent to share information, at each review; to make enquiries into who the individual would like involved in their review, at each intervention; and that not including individuals in their review should only happen if a best interest decision has been made that involvement will cause significant distress.
A spokesperson for Peterborough City Council said: “We accept the findings by the Ombudsman, have carried out the actions required in their report and will recognise the learnings from this. We would also like to offer our apologies to the individuals involved for any distress caused.”
Lottie Winson
