Summary: Miss Y complained the Council failed to take a full assessment of Mr X’s needs which led to it wrongly deciding he did not have any eligible care and support needs. She also complained the Council closed Mr X’s file without notice and without any consideration on how it would impact on Mr X’s wellbeing. We find the Council was at fault for failing to consider Mr X’s communication needs before it closed his file. It was also at fault for failing to properly engage Miss Y in the assessment process. These faults caused Mr X upset and shock. The Council has agreed to our recommendation to apologise to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complained the Council failed to take a full assessment of Mr X’s needs which led to it wrongly deciding he did not have any eligible care and support needs. She also complained the Council failed to involve her as Mr X’s advocate during the assessment process. Finally, she complained the Council closed Mr X’s file without notice and without any consideration on how it would impact on Mr X’s wellbeing.
2. Miss Y says Mr X has left without any support which has had a drastic impact on his mental health and wellbeing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We may investigate complaints from the person affected by the complaint issues, or from someone else if they have given their consent. If the person affected cannot give their consent, we may investigate a complaint from a person we decide is a suitable representative. (section 26A or 34C, Local Government Act 1974)
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

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation and guidance

9. 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.
10. 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.
11. The care and support statutory guidance sets out the role of advocates in the assessment and support planning process. It says at the point of first contact, councils must form a judgement about whether a person has substantial difficulty in being involved with these processes. If it is thought that they do, and that there is no appropriate individual to support and represent them for the purpose of facilitating their involvement, then the council must arrange for an independent advocate to support and represent the person.

What happened

12. This chronology provides an overview of key events in this case and does not detail everything that happened.
13. Mr X has a diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome. Mr X received social care support from the Council from 2016 to 2019. He has received several assessments of his care and support needs from the Council since then. The Council did not identify Mr X had any eligible care and support needs in those assessments.
14. Mr X and his advocate (Ms V) met with Mr X’s social worker in February 2023. The Council agreed to complete a review of his care and support needs.
15. Mr X referred himself for a communication assessment. A speech and language therapist assessed his needs in August. He emailed the Council in August. He said he wanted it to take matters slowly and wait for the therapist’s assessment before it developed a plan.
16. The therapist completed her report in mid-September. She noted Mr X has sensory processing difficulties and he would benefit from psychotherapy, a referral to an occupational therapist and an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder assessment.
17. Mr X’s social worker emailed Mr X and asked to meet with him to review his familiar faces plan. This is a multi-agency plan to support people who frequently interact with agencies. Mr X replied and said he no longer had an advocate. He also said the therapist had to add further information to her report and he wanted the Council to consider that. The social worker agreed to make a referral for another advocate for Mr X.
18. Miss Y became Mr X’s new advocate in October.
19. Mr X attended a meeting with Miss Y, his social worker and another officer to discuss the familiar faces plan. Officers in the meeting listened to Mr X’s views and agreed to revise the plan.
20. Mr X’s therapist sent a follow up report to the Council about Mr X’s needs.
21. Mr X emailed the Council at the end of October and said he wanted to be discharged from social care.
22. The social worker called Miss Y in mid-November. Miss Y said Mr X had asked the Council to put things on hold while he thought about what he wanted. The social worker agreed to contact Mr X in four weeks to review the situation.
23. The social worker had a meeting with Mr X in mid-December. Mr X asked said he still unsure what he wanted to do about social care involvement. The social worker said he would revisit matters in the New Year.
24. The Council arranged a meeting to review the familiar faces plan in February 2024. The social worker, Mr X and Miss Y attended. The social worker told Mr X he did not have any eligible care needs and therefore the Council would be closing his case. He said Mr X did have needs, but they were health needs (psychological) rather than social care needs. He sent Mr X a copy of his assessment and the closing letter a few days later.
25. Miss Y complained to the Council in March. She said the social worker’s assessment did not address Mr Y’s needs and did not address this communication issues. She also said the social worker told Mr X his case was closed in a meeting about his familiar faces plan. She said this was unfair as Mr X could only focus at one topic at a time and he was not prepared for the conversation. She also said she asked the social worker for a meeting so she and Mr X could provide their views before he finalised the assessment. However, he refused it.
26. The Council did not uphold the complaint. It said Miss Y was involved in some meetings. It also said the social worker considered the communication report and accurately reflected Mr X’s needs in the assessment. It said its adult social care department prepared Mr X for the closure of his file.

Back to top

Analysis

27. Miss Y says the Council did not involve her during the assessment of Mr X’s care and support needs. Mr X’s assessment says he can complete the assessments with help from an independent advocate, main carer or support staff. The Council had a meeting with Mr X’s former advocate (Ms V) at the start of the assessment process. Miss Y attended two meetings with officers to discuss the familiar faces plan, and she did exchange emails and have telephone calls with Mr X’s social worker about various issues to do with Mr X. However, the Council did not have any meetings with her or discussions specifically about Mr X’s care and support needs under the Care Act 2014. I accept an assessment is a serious of conversations, but I consider the Council should have more to involve Miss Y in discussions about its ongoing assessment of Mr X’s care and support needs. Its failure to do so is fault. This caused Mr X some upset and frustration.
28. Miss Y says the Council’s failure to involve her in the assessment process and have a final meeting before it closed the case means it has reached the wrong decision that Mr X does not have any care and support needs. She says Mr X has communication needs and he needs support to function at home and in the community. The Council considered Mr X’s needs over a lengthy period, information from his emails and meetings which he attended, the communication report and his ability to function at home and in the community. It decided Mr X does have needs, but they are health needs (psychological therapy) rather than social care needs. That was down to the professional judgment of officers and not one I can criticise. I find on balance that even if the Council had done more to involve Miss Y, it is more likely than not it would have still reached the same decision he does not have any eligible care and support needs.
29. The Council told Mr X it would close his case in a meeting about his familiar faces plan. Mr X says he was not prepared for this conversation as he can only focus at one thing at a time. The Council says it conducted many assessments of Mr X’s care and support needs over several years and it decided in all of them he did not have any eligible needs. It also says it told Mr X it was likely it would close his case before February 2024. The Council was aware of Mr X’s communication issues and his sensory processing difficulties. The familiar faces plan is different from an assessment of Mr X’s care and support needs. I have not seen any evidence the Council told Mr X it was likely it would close his case before February 2024. The Council was at fault for not providing Mr X with advanced warning given his communication issues. I am satisfied it would have caused Mr X a shock and some upset. I accept previous assessments since 2019 did not identify any eligible care and support needs. However, the Council decided to do a reassessment of Mr X’s needs and so there was a reasonable expectation from him it could come to a different conclusion.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. By 22 August 2025 the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused by fault in this statement.
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Decision

32. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr X an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendation and so I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman