Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council dealt with his adult son’s care needs. Mr B said the Council left gaps in his son’s care which meant Mr B had to provide that support. We found the Council is at fault and has caused an injustice due to delay and errors in its process. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment in recognition of the injustice identified.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained about the way the Council has dealt with his adult son (A)’s care needs. More specifically, he said the Council:
• has not carried out a new assessment for his son, despite confirming this was needed in November 2023;
• has assumed his son does not have mental capacity without justification;
• has not informed his son that it had a court appointed deputyship for his health and welfare decisions;
• has not offered Mr B a carer’s assessment and therefore failed to note that he has been acting as a second carer for his son.
2. Mr B says there have been gaps in his son’s care and he has had to provide this, causing a strain on him too. Mr B is seeking a review of his son’s needs, so that an appropriate care and support plan can be drawn up.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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)
5. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. 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

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have considered the matter from when A’s Care Plan annual review was due, in March 2023. Although this is a little over twelve months before Mr B contacted this office, I have included the additional months for the sake of completeness over the issue I am looking at. I have not investigated matters before this as they are late and there is no reason they could not have been brought to us sooner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr B and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on a draft decision. I have considered all comments received before making this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

10. The Council assessed A’s care needs and issued a Care Plan in March 2022.
11. Mr B contacted the Council in June 2023 and asked for the Care Plan to be reviewed as it was not meeting A’s needs.
12. The Council acknowledged that the Care Plan was overdue for a review and explained that due to demand on its service, there was a delay in providing this. Mr B was told this could take from six to twelve months.
13. The Council reviewed A’s care plan in October 2023 and decided a new assessment was needed.
14. The new assessment did not take place until May 2024.
15. The new assessment increased the support A would be provided significantly.
16. Mr B complained to the Council in October 2023 and the Council provided its response on 13 March 2024. Mr B escalated his complaint on 22 March, and the Council responded on 25 July 2025.
17. In its complaint response, the Council accepted there were some failings in its service and apologised. It also said training would be provided to relevant staff and made an offer of £250 to Mr B in recognition of its failings.

Analysis and Findings

18. The Care Act 2014 and the Care and Support Statutory Guidance set out what is expected of councils dealing with people with care needs. The guidance sets out that a Care and Support Plan must be reviewed no less than once every twelve months.
19. A’s Care and Support Plan was therefore due to be reviewed by March 2023. This did not happen until October 2023 and is fault.
20. Mr B has explained his concerns that his son was not receiving the support he needed, and that this had a significant impact on Mr B as he was required to step in and provide the support himself. This is an injustice to both Mr B and to A.
21. The guidance also sets out that where a Council makes the decision that an assessment is needed, it should be carried out in a reasonable and appropriate timescale. We would generally expect this to be within four to six weeks.
22. The Council had reviewed B’s needs, and decided the plan in place did not meet his needs. It was also aware its review was delayed by eight months and B may have been without the support he needed for all of that time.
23. The new assessment did not take place until May 2024. This is a delay of approximately four months.
24. Mr B and A have suffered an injustice for approximately a year. This is reflected in the remedy I have recommended.
25. With regard to Mr B’s specific complaints – I do not find fault with the Council’s reassessment of A’s needs. I am satisfied the Council carried out an assessment of his needs in May 2024, and the Council is not at fault for using a previous assessment as a basis from which to review up to date needs.
26. The Council has acknowledged that it did not take all reasonable steps to engage directly with A during its review in October 2023.
27. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 says a person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established he lacks capacity. The Care and Support statutory guidance says a needs assessment must be person centred and support the individual’s choices and control. The Council has not shown that it did this, and this is fault.
28. This has caused an injustice as A was excluded from participating in the assessment of his own needs. This denied him the opportunity to exercise any choice or control. There is some mitigation to this as Mr B was involved in the assessment and he has been seen to have acted in A’s best interests. However, the remedy I have recommended reflects the injustice caused here also.
29. Mr B said the Council has not informed his son that it had a court appointed deputyship for his health and welfare decisions. I have seen the Council explained to Mr B that it does not have any such deputyship and apologised for any confusion it had caused in this regard. I consider the Council’s has dealt with this issue appropriately.
30. Mr B has also complained that the Council has not offered him a carer’s assessment and therefore failed to note that he has been acting as a second carer for his son.
31. I have seen the Council offered a carer’s assessment alongside A’s 2023 assessment. Mr B declined this as he said he wanted the Council to focus on his son’s needs in the first instance. Mr B is entitled to decline this offer. I have not considered whether a carer’s assessment was offered when the Council assessed B in 2022 as that is out of time.
32. The Council acknowledged in its response to Mr B that it had not replied to his complaints within the timescales its own complaints handling policy sets out. It offered £250 in recognition of Mr B’s time and trouble as a result of this. I consider this a reasonable remedy for the Council’s complaint handling issue.
33. The Council did not make any offer of a remedy in recognition of the faults identified in this decision.
34. Mr B has been caused inevitable distress and uncertainty as we know he felt the March 2022 plan was not meeting his son’s needs in June 2023. From that point onwards he was left worrying that the Council could be doing more for him and his son. He has also had to step in to provide care and support where it was not provided by the Council.
35. Our guidance on remedies says where the injustice caused is avoidable distress, uncertainty and lost opportunity for action to be taken, we will normally recommend a symbolic payment of up to £500. This can be exceeded depending on the significance of the injustice.
36. Mr B has had this injustice for approximately a year in what were very difficult circumstances as he was being impacted physically as well as mentally. I have therefore recommended £750 as a recognition of the prolonged period and significant impact on Mr B.
37. Given there was a year between when the annual review should have taken place and when the assessment took place, I cannot say with any certainty that A’s needs would have been the same in March 2023 as they were in May 2024. On this basis, I have not concluded that A was deprived of the provision he was assessed to need in May 2024 for a year. There is some mitigation here as Mr B was helping to ensure his needs were met.
38. I can say that on the balance of probability, given the discrepancy between the March 2022 care plan and the May 2024 assessment, it is likely that A went without some support. Although his father provided some of the support needed, he has not been able to meet all of A’s needs. This is supported by the fact that Mr B contacted the Council in June 2023 to request an assessment.
39. On this basis, I am satisfied it is appropriate to recommend a payment to A. I have therefore recommended a symbolic payment of £750 to A.

Back to top

Agreed Action

40. Within one month of the decision, the Council should:
• Apologise to Mr B and A for the injustice caused to each of them. 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 in my findings.
• Make a payment of £750 to A, in recognition of the injustice caused to him by the Council’s delays and its failure to include him in his assessment.
• Make a payment of £750 to Mr B, in recognition of the injustice caused to him by the Council’s delays.
• If it has not already done so, make a £250 payment to Mr B for his time and trouble in relation to the Council’s complaint handling.
41. Within three months of the decision, the Council should:
• Review its policy and process of reviewing existing Care and Support Plans to ensure that they are reviewed in accordance with statutory guidance;
• Review its policy and process of carrying out assessments and ensure they are being carried out in accordance with statutory guidance;
• Remind all relevant staff of the correct policies and procedures.
42. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

43. I find fault causing injustice. I have recommended the Council agree actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman