Summary: Mr B complained that the Council had delayed in carrying out an assessment of his care needs and providing support. It also failed to adhere to a communication plan, communicate with him appropriately or explain how his case was progressing. We found fault in the actions of the Council which caused Mr B significant distress and uncertainty over a prolonged period. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and increase the symbolic payment to £1000.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that Kent County Council (the Council):
• delayed in carrying out an adequate assessment of his care and support needs;
• failed to understand his needs properly;
• failed to provide the care and support required to meet those needs;
• failed to explain to him how the support will be provided, what that entails including direct payments to employ a personal assistant and how much it will cost; and
• communicated poorly with him throughout this period, ignoring a communication plan drawn up in 2021 and not providing a single point of contact.
2. This has caused, and continues to cause, Mr B significant distress and frustration as he does not have the care and support he needs.

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. 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 B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr B 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

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.

Reviews

9. Section 27 of the Care Act 2014 says councils should keep care and support plans under review. Government Care and Support Statutory Guidance says councils should review plans at least every 12 months. Councils should consider a light touch review six to eight weeks after agreeing and signing off the plan and personal budget. They should carry out reviews as quickly as is reasonably practicable in a timely manner proportionate to the needs to be met. Councils must also conduct a review if an adult or a person acting on the adult’s behalf makes a reasonable request for one.

What happened

10. Mr B previously had a care and support needs assessment in 2021. The Council also assigned him a single point of contact and drew up a communication plan to aid his communication needs. The Council closed his case in 2022.
11. In November 2023 Mr B contacted the Council requesting a review of his care needs. He said he had communication needs and now required an advocate or support worker. The Council said his case had been closed so there was no open case requiring a review. The Council tried to call him to discuss carrying out a new assessment but did not get through to him.
12. In mid-December 2023 Mr B contacted the Council explaining that he had a communication plan and he had had previous contact from a senior member of the adult social care team. The staff member confirmed that they had previously worked with Mr B and that he needed a communication plan.
13. Mr B was put on the waiting list for a care needs assessment but the information about his communication needs was not passed on.
14. Mr B contacted the Council on 20 August 2024 concerned that he had still not had an assessment. He again mentioned his communication plan and previous contact with a particular officer.
15. The Council carried out a telephone assessment several weeks later. The social worker identified one area of need mainly around his housing and referred him to several outside organisations for support.
16. Mr B complained about the assessment saying it was too quick and not very thorough.
17. The Council upheld his complaint and reassigned the case to another social worker (SW). They carried out a new assessment on 22 October 2024, identifying four areas of eligible need and recommending support from a personal assistant on a gradual basis (an hour a week initially) though direct payments (payments made to the service user to make their own arrangements for care, rather than a council commissioning care).
18. SW drew up a care and support plan recommending a personal assistant initially for 30 minutes a week by direct payments. At this point SW estimated the cost of the care would be £56 a week. The Council also completed a financial assessment which concluded that Mr B would pay for the total cost due to the level of his income.
19. In January 2025 Mr B queried the cost of the care as it seemed very expensive. He sent some emails and made a telephone call with some shouting and swearing. SW replied asking him to refrain from being abusive.
20. Mr B did not understand when or how he had been abusive. He then complained to the Council about SW, the assessment and the cost of the care. He also complained to us.
21. In early March 2025 the Council agreed an action. It appointed a main point of contact (Officer X) for Mr B. SW would continue with the assessment but have no direct contact with Mr B and Officer X would update the communication plan with Mr B.
22. The Council responded to Mr B’s complaint on 7 March 2025. It found fault in its actions: It acknowledged that a communication plan had been drawn up in 2021 with a named point of contact, but the Council had closed the case in error in June 2022, so no annual review was done, leading to Mr B’s contact in late 2023. The Council then delayed for seven months in carrying out the assessment. SW made an error in the cost of the care which caused distress to Mr B. The Council said it would carry out a review of Mr B’s disability related expenditure, review his financial assessment and then confirm how much the care would cost. It would also provide him with a named worker, review the communication plan and add it to the front sheet of its communication system so everyone would be aware of it. It also offered to pay him £200 as a gesture of goodwill.
23. In April 2025 the Council approved one hour of weekly personal assistant support through direct payments. Mr B said he no longer wanted a direct payment arrangement but wanted the Council to commission the care. The Council found a care agency and the care started on 21 May 2025 initially for half an hour a week at a cost of £22.80 per hour.
24. In response to my enquiries the Council acknowledged the delays in the assessment process, the inadequate initial assessment and the failure to note his communication needs sooner. It said it would usually aim to complete an assessment in a month but in Mr B’s case it took approximately 8 months. It recognised that the delays and the communication failures had caused Mr B significant distress and anxiety which affected his wellbeing. It offered to increase the payment of £200 to £500 in recognition of the injustice caused to Mr B.
25. It said it had established training in place to develop practitioners’ skills of assessment when engaging with people who have a diagnosis of autism. It said it had reminded teams of the importance of recording communication plans and following them. It has also introduced a risk prioritisation tool to triage referrals for assessment more effectively and reduce overall waiting times.
26. In Mr B’s case it recognised that it would have been beneficial to have contacted Mr B during the waiting period to ensure he was coping, to clarify the existence of a waiting list and provide a timeframe. It also said it should have allocated him a named person to contact which may have helped avoid the extreme frustration he experienced. It had added to its procedure to ensure people on the waiting list are contacted every three months.

Analysis

Failure to carry out review

27. The Council incorrectly closed Mr B’s case in June 2022 meaning that no review of his care needs took place until he contacted the Council in November 2023. This was fault which meant Mr B was caused uncertainty about whether he was eligible for more support. It also meant his communication needs and plan were not available on the system, so staff were unaware of his specific communication needs which would have explained some of his behaviour. If this had been available to the social workers in 2024 it may have prevented the situation escalating as it did, causing a breakdown in communication and further delaying the provision of support.

Delay in assessment

28. The Council delayed for eight months in carrying out the assessment and did not keep Mr B informed of what was happening. Not only did it deprive Mr B of the support he needed but it also caused him frustration and distress as he had no contact from the Council during the period of delay. I welcome the improvements the Council has made to its procedures and the recognition of the impact on Mr B.
29. The Council then took almost two months to carry out an adequate assessment taking into account Mr B’s condition and needs and properly identifying the support he required. This was fault which contributed to the delay.

Errors in assessing the cost of the care

30. The Council made an error in assessing the cost of the care which caused Mr B anxiety. This was a straightforward error which should have been picked up more quickly and the correct information given to Mr B. The error was made in November 2024 but not explained to Mr B until March 2025, with the correct information not provided until May 2025. This was fault which caused Mr B distress and uncertainty.

Injustice

31. Had the delays not occurred, Mr B could have received the personal assistant support around ten months sooner. This would have improved his sense of isolation and wellbeing. He would also have experienced much less distress and uncertainty. All of these impacts were exacerbated by the failure to put reasonable adjustments in place for his communication needs until March 2025.

Back to top

Action

32. I welcome the Council’s acknowledgement of fault in this case and the significant impact it has had on Mr B. I also welcome the steps it has taken to put the support in place along with a new communication plan and the offer of £500 in recognition of the injustice caused to Mr B. I also note it has made a number of improvements to staff training and procedures to ensure the mistakes do not recur.
33. However, given the length of the delay and the multiple errors involved I consider a higher symbolic payment is necessary. I recommend within a month of the date of my final decision the Council:
• apologises to Mr B and increases the total payment to £1000 (including the £500 already offered).
34. As the Council has already detailed the steps it has taken to improve its procedures, I have not made any service improvement recommendations.
35. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

36. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman