Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his son, Mr Y’s, case after he made a referral to Adult Social Care Services in March 2023. He said Mr Y has had seven allocated social workers since March 2023 which delayed Mr Y getting the relevant care assessments and support he required. The Council was at fault for the delay in carrying out the necessary assessments. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty this has caused. It also agreed to create an action plan to improve handovers when a case is reallocated to a new social worker.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his son, Mr Y’s case after he made a referral to Adult Care Services in March 2023. He said Mr Y has had seven allocated social workers since March 2023 which delayed Mr Y getting the relevant care assessments and support he required. This has caused distress, frustration and uncertainty as his needs have gone unmet for longer than necessary.

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 the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
4. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Care Act Assessment

7. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. They must provide an assessment to everyone regardless of their finances or whether the council thinks the person has eligible needs. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the results they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where suitable their carer or any other person they might want involved.
8. Councils must carry out assessments over a suitable and reasonable timescale considering the urgency of needs and any variation in those needs. Councils should tell people when their assessment will take place and keep them informed throughout the assessment.
9. The Care Act 2014 gives councils a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan (or a support plan for a carer). The care and support plan should consider what needs the person has, what they want to achieve, what they can do by themselves or with existing support and what care and support may be available in the local area. When preparing a care and support plan the council must involve any carer the adult has. The support plan must include a personal budget, which is the money the council has worked out it will cost to arrange the necessary care and support for that person.

Mental Capacity Assessment

10. A person aged 16 or over must be presumed to have capacity to make a decision unless it is established they lack capacity. The council must assess someone’s ability to make a decision when that person’s capacity is in doubt. How it assesses capacity may vary depending on the complexity of the decision.

What happened

11. The information below is not a comprehensive overview of everything that happened. It is a summary of key information.
12. Mr and Mrs X have a son Mr Y who has a neurodevelopmental condition. Mr Y lives at home and the whole family play a role in caring for Mr Y. Mr Y received 20 hours of support a week through a direct payment. One of Mr Y’s family members acts as his personal assistant.
13. In March 2023, Mrs X reported to the Police that they had found indecent images on Mr Y’s laptop. The records show Mrs X contacted the Council the same month and requested a new Care Act Assessment as Mr Y and the family required further support.
14. At the end of May 2023, the records show the Council contacted Mrs X to say it would be allocating a social worker. At the of July 2023, the social worker carried out their first home visit. The social worker suggested a male personal assistant should support Mr Y for a few hours a week, there should be further input from a qualified therapist and a trial at a suitable respite placement.
15. In August 2023, the social worker called Mrs X to inform her they were submitting a referral application to get a male personal assistant. The social worker also advised they were trying to get a therapist for Mr Y and would be discussing funding with managers.
16. In September 2023, Mrs X contacted the social worker saying from March 2023 to present the Council has failed to support them. The records show Mr X also emailed the social worker the same month requesting he complete a new Care Act Assessment and Mental Capacity Assessment.
17. The records show in October 2023, the social worker advised that Mr Y needed a Care Act Assessment. Another professional involved in the case advised that Mr Y required a risk assessment and Mental Capacity Assessment.
18. In November 2023, the social worker left the role without informing Mr and Mrs X. Two weeks later the Council allocated a new social worker to the case. Five days later it allocated a different social worker as it considered Mr Y needed a male social worker. Mr X raised a stage one complaint about this saying there was no continuity of care or communication. The Council upheld this.
19. Between December 2023 and February 2024, the social worker carried out four home visits to Mr Y. In February 2024, the social worker completed the Care Act Assessment for Mr Y. The outcome of the assessment was that Mr Y had the following care and supports needs which required support from the Council:
• Managing and maintaining nutrition
• Maintaining personal hygiene
• Being appropriately clothed
• Maintaining a habitable home environment
• Developing and maintaining family or other personal relationships
• Accessing and engaging in work, training, education or volunteering
• Making use of necessary facilities or services in the local community
20. The assessment stated the need for a Mental Capacity Assessment and risk assessment.
21. In April 2024, the social worker left and the Council allocated a new worker. The new social worker advised it was her role to complete a current Care and Support Plan and a risk assessment. In July 2024, the social worker left the role.
22. In September 2024, the Care and Support Plan was sent to Mr and Mrs X. However, the records suggest this was an incomplete Plan.
23. In October 2024, the Council allocated a new social worker to the case but they left the role the following month.
24. Mr X escalated the complaint to stage two and the Council issued a response in October 2024. The Council said there was clear evidence the Service were actively involved with Mr Y and the newly allocated social worker would be following up the consideration of commissioning a therapist. The Council advised the risk assessment would also be revisited.
25. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of the matter and complained to us.
26. As of January 2025, the Council has allocated two social workers to work together due to the complexity of Mr Y’s case. It has still not considered funding for a therapist and has not completed a Mental Capacity Assessment or risk assessment.

My findings

27. Mr and Mrs X made a referral to the Council in March 2023 and requested the Council carry out a new Care Act Assessment for their son Mr Y. They requested this again in September 2023. Councils must carry out assessments over a suitable and reasonable timescale. However, this was not carried until February 2024, almost a year after they initially requested the assessment. This delay was fault.
28. Once the assessment determined that Mr Y had care and support needs, the Council should have issued a care and support plan. However, this was never finalised and the Council sent an incomplete copy to Mr X in September 2024. This was fault.
29. In July 2023, the Council considered Mr Y required input from a therapist and in October 2023 the Council decided it should undertake a risk assessment and Mental Capacity Assessment. To date, the Council has not carried these out. The Council was at fault for its failure to consider commissioning a therapist and for its failure to carry out a Mental Capacity Assessment and risk assessment.
30. The Ombudsman can make findings of fault where there is a failure to provide a service regardless of the reasons for that service failure. It is acknowledged that staff turnover has had a significant impact on Mr Y’s case. This staff turnover has caused the matter to drift without meaningful progression. This is fault which has caused distress, frustration and uncertainty as Mr Y’s needs have gone unmet for longer than necessary.

Back to top

Action

31. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to take the following action:
1. Apologise to Mr X, Mrs X and Mr Y to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty the delays and failure to carry out the relevant assessments have caused. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
2. Pay Mr Y £300 to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by Mr Y’s needs going unmet for longer than necessary.
3. Pay Mr X £200 to recognise the distress frustration and uncertainty it has caused him by Mr Y’s needs going unmet for longer than necessary.
4. Complete the risk assessment, Mental Capacity Assessment and care and support plan.
5. Create an action plan focusing on how the Council will improve handovers and ensure continuity of work when a case is reallocated to a new social worker, to ensure a case does not drift without meaningful progression.
32. Within two months of the final decision, the Council must ensure Mr Y is receiving the provision identified in his care and support plan.
33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

34. I completed this investigation. I have found fault and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by the fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman