Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to properly consider Mrs X’s need for respite as a carer and for not providing her with regular respite it accepted she needs. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X to recognise the avoidable distress caused by its fault. It will also take steps to prevent recurrence of the same fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council did not provide respite from her caring role from July 2023 onwards. Mrs X said as a result, her health and wellbeing suffered.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I spoke to Mrs X about her complaint.
5. I considered evidence provided by the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

7. Councils must carry out a carer’s assessment where it appears a carer may have needs for support. The assessment must include an assessment of the carer’s ability and willingness to continue in the caring role, the outcomes the carer wishes to achieve in daily life and whether support could contribute to achieving those outcomes. (Care Act 2014, section 10)
8. The Care Act 2014 says the council may meet the carer’s needs by providing a service directly to the adult needing care. Respite services are means-tested so the carer may have to contribute towards the cost.

What happened

9. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
10. Mrs X lives at home with her adult son Mr Y who has disabilities. She is his informal carer.
11. Mr Y’s needs assessment noted that in June 2023 Mrs X asked the Council to provide respite from her caring role as soon as possible and once every three months.
12. In October 2023 Mrs X complained to the Council about its refusal to fund respite planned for July 2023 to a location where she, Mr Y and his professional carers had previously gone for a respite break.
13. In January and March 2024 the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint and said that respite at Mrs X’s chosen location was not cost-effective and was therefore refused. It again noted that Mrs X had a need for respite every three months as it had recorded in Mr Y’s reassessment of needs that was undertaken recently.
14. The Council completed a carer’s assessment in early 2024 which noted that Mrs X was no longer able or willing to continue caring for Mr Y. It also noted that Mrs X declined to have a carer support plan because she was not eligible for Direct Payments and her needs could be met through a referral to the Council’s adult services. It referred to Mrs X’s need for respite but made no recommendations about any consequential provision, noting only Mrs X’s concern that previous respite provision had been withdrawn by the council.
15. In May 2024 Mrs X complained to us that the Council had not provided any respite. We decided the Council needed a chance to fully consider her complaint.
16. In August 2024 the Council issued a further stage one complaint response. It noted that it had not addressed Mrs X’s complaint that she had not received respite every three months. The Council apologised to Mrs X and said that it was working to put care arrangements in place for Mr Y so that she could go on her planned break later that month.
17. In April 2025 the Council issued a stage two response. In it, the Council:

• noted Mr Y received care at home while Mrs X had a break in August 2024 and during her planned hospital stay and recovery period in March and April 2025.
• apologised for the distress caused from the uncertainty regarding funding Mr Y’s care during Mrs X’s recovery period.
• said it would provide respite during Mrs X’s upcoming planned hospital stay and recovery in June 2025 and that it would ensure respite was built into Mr Y’s package of care.

18. Mrs X told us she has received no further respite since. In response to our initial enquiries, the Council said that it had identified a need for respite in September 2023 and that Mrs X’s view was that respite was needed every three months. It said that while its own assessment did not explicitly state that respite was needed every three months, it did not “contest” Mrs X’s view.

Findings

19. The Care Act 2014 gives unpaid carers the right to a carer’s assessment to determine if they are eligible for support, including respite care to take breaks from their caring role. If an eligible need for respite care is identified, councils must meet those needs, subject to a financial assessment to determine the extent to which a carer is eligible for assistance.
20. The Council’s assessment of Mrs X’s needs as a carer was poor. The Council should have properly assessed Mrs X’s needs as part of the carer’s assessment in early 2024 to set out what respite support was needed to meet her needs as a carer. It should have also set out how it intended to meet those needs if it decided Mrs X was eligible for its assistance. It did not do so.
21. The Council’s carer assessment recorded Mrs X’s understanding that respite previously on offer “was now not approved” but that she needed respite “even more now”. The Council failed to set out any consequential action as part of the carer’s assessment, noting only that Mrs X did not want a carer support plan. The Council’s failure to properly assess Mrs X’s needs as a carer was fault. It caused Mrs X avoidable distress and uncertainty.
22. However, the Council accepted later that Mrs X needed respite, therefore it had a duty to provide respite care. The Council did not refuse Mrs X’s request for the respite to be provided every three months. Therefore, it should have provided respite every three months from July 2023. It did not. This was fault. It left Mrs X without respite from her caring role until August 2024 and that was a significant injustice.
23. After Mrs X received respite in August 2024, the Council had an opportunity to put things right and arrange respite care every three months. It did not do so as the next time Mrs X received respite was between March and April 2025 for hospital admission and recovery. This was fault which added to Mrs X’s distress.
24. In response to the draft decision the Council explained that the Integrated Care Board (ICB) would need to agree funding for respite and that it was working with ICB to put in place a sustainable long-term solution with regular respite for Mrs X built into Mr Y’s budget.

Back to top

Recommended action

25. Within one month of this decision the Council will:
1. Apologise to Mrs X for the avoidable distress and uncertainty she was caused. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making this apology.
2. Pay Mrs X £500 to recognise the avoidable distress caused by its failure to arrange regular respite for her as a carer.
3. Review Mrs X’s carer’s assessment to include proper consideration of her respite needs and the provision required to meet those needs. Until then the Council will provide Mrs X with respite every three months.
26. Within two months of this decision the Council will set out the steps it has taken to ensure, where carer respite needs are identified in carers’ assessments, it gives proper consideration of how those needs should be met.
27. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

28. I found fault causing injustice and the Council agreed actions to remedy that injustice and prevent recurrence of the same fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman