Summary: We find that the Council delayed completing a care needs assessment for B, Mr X’s adult son, and then delayed providing sufficient funding to meet his increased needs. There were also failings in the way the Council communicated with Mr X. These failings caused Mr X distress, uncertainty and placed avoidable strain on Mr X providing the additional care B needed. It is also likely that B did not receive all the support he needed. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment, and make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with B’s care needs. More specifically, he said the Council:
• did not communicate effectively;
• delayed implementing a care needs assessment from May 2024; and
• assumed B does not have mental capacity without justification.
2. Mr X says that B has not received all the provision he needs, which has put a strain on him trying to provide the additional care.

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. 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.
5. 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated Mr X’s complaints about matters that took place between June 2024 and February 2025. I have not investigated events prior to June 2024 because these were addressed in a separate complaint. My investigation does not include any complaints Mr X has made since bringing this complaint to us in February 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Law, policy and guidance

Assessment

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.

Care Plan

11. The Care Act 2014 gives councils a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan. The 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.
12. While there is no defined timescale for the completion of the care and support planning process, the plan should be completed in a timely fashion, proportionate to the needs to be met. Local authorities must ensure that sufficient time is taken to ensure the plan is appropriate to meet the needs in question, and is agreed by the person the plan is intended for. The planning process should not unduly delay needs being met.

Mental Capacity Act

13. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is the framework for acting and deciding for people who lack the mental capacity to make particular decisions for themselves. The Act (and the Code of Practice 2007) describes the steps a person should take when dealing with someone who may lack capacity to make decisions for themselves. It describes when to assess a person’s capacity to make a decision, how to do this, and how to make a decision on behalf of somebody who cannot do so.

Mental Capacity Assessment

14. An assessment of someone’s capacity is specific to the decision to be made at a particular time. It should be carried out when a person’s capacity is in doubt.
15. Before deciding that someone lacks capacity to make a particular decision, it is important to take all practical and appropriate steps to enable them to make that decision themselves.
16. A person aged 16 or over must be presumed to have capacity to make a decision unless it is established they lack capacity. A person should not be treated as unable to make a decision:
• because they make an unwise decision;
• based simply on: their age; their appearance; assumptions about their condition, or any aspect of their behaviour; or
• before all practicable steps to help the person to do so have been taken without success.

Background and key events

17. B lives at home with his father, Mr X. B has care and support needs, which are met through a personal budget provided by the Council. This funding enables a team of carers to support B in his home.
18. The Council completed a care needs assessment between May 2024 and September 2024. The assessment included an indicative budget for two carers, 24 hours a day.
19. Mr X complained to the Council about the length of time the assessment took, the lack of clarity about when B’s increased care needs would be addressed, and poor communication.
20. Mr X also asked B’s social worker about the terms 'High Complex' and 'Specialist and High Complex' which appeared in the assessment document. The document indicated that the Council considered B’s level of need fell within the `High Complex` category.
21. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in October 2024. It accepted that there had been communication failings and explained that it had taken longer to complete the assessment because of the need to make several referrals to other professionals. It also said that a mental capacity assessment was required before B’s care and support plan could be finalised.
22. Mr X was not satisfied and asked for his complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the complaints procedure in early November 2024. He raised additional concerns, including the Council’s requirement for B to have a mental capacity assessment before finalising the care and support plan, and its failure to respond to his request for information regarding the level of need categories.
23. The Council issued its final complaint response in February 2025. It again accepted that there had been communication failings and it acknowledged that the quality of support provided to Mr X and B had fallen short of expected standards. It apologised and outlined improvements it would be making to its working practices.
24. The Council did not accept that there had been delays in the assessment process, reiterating that input from multi-disciplinary professionals had been necessary. It stated that there were grounds to consider B’s capacity in relation to his care and support and completing a mental capacity assessment would assist in progressing the care and support plan. The Council also stated that it was necessary to complete a continuing healthcare checklist.
25. The Council accepted that, while these matters were outstanding, an amended care and support plan should have been in place to meet B’s assessed eligible needs. It explained why it considered the mental capacity assessment and continuing healthcare checklist necessary, but stated that these should not prevent agreed changes in support from being implemented.
26. Dissatisfied with this response, Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.
27. A care and support plan was completed in May 2025. It included a personal budget for B to continue having one carer 24 hours a day, as well as an additional carer to attend six times a day to assist with transfers, and an additional ‘disturbed night worker’ for six months to gather further evidence about B’s needs overnight. It was backdated to 1 April 2025.

Analysis

Communication

28. In its stage two complaint response, the Council accepted that it had missed appointments and failed to respond to Mr X’s emails about the different level of need categories. This was fault and caused Mr X avoidable inconvenience and put him to unnecessary time and trouble.
29. The Council later told Mr X that the support calculator in the assessment document had not been updated following a move from four care level categories (standard, complex, high complex and specialist and high complex) to two levels (standard and complex). The Council failed to explain how it determined eligibility for each category. This was fault and caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty about whether B was receiving the correct hourly rate.
30. The Council has since provided Mr X with information about the hourly rates for the standard and complex levels. Mr X subsequently complained that the Council had used too low a rate when calculating B’s personal budget. This was raised after this complaint was made to us and is therefore not part of this investigation.

Care needs assessment

31. Councils must complete assessments within a reasonable timescale, taking account of the urgency of the person’s needs. The care needs assessment took around four months to complete (May to September 2024). While I recognise that information from other professionals was required, I consider it took too long to complete the assessment. This is particularly so given the Council was aware, two months before it was completed, that the occupational therapist considered B required an additional carer for transfers. This delay was fault and contributed to later delays in care provision.

Care and support plan

32. The Council then took a further eight months (September 2024 to May 2025) to implement a care and support plan. Following the occupational therapist’s recommendation, the social worker decided that B required two carers at all times and sought additional funding for this.
33. The panel accepted that two carers were required for transfers, but it was not satisfied there was sufficient evidence to support two-to-one care at all times. The panel sought further justification and explored a less costly option. While councils may consider cost, they must not delay meeting assessed eligible needs. There was clear evidence that B needed the support of two carers for transfers, but funding for this was not provided until around eight months after the assessment was completed. This was fault.
34. The Council also allowed disagreement about a mental capacity assessment and continuing healthcare considerations to delay care planning. It failed to identify an interim or alternative way forward to meet B’s increased assessed needs promptly. This was fault.
35. The Council’s delays caused Mr X distress and uncertainty and placed him under avoidable pressure to provide additional care. It is also likely B did not receive all the support he needed during this period.

Mental capacity

36. Mr X believes the Council carried out a mental capacity assessment in September 2024 and was therefore wrong to seek a further assessment before finalising B’s care and support plan.
37. On the balance of probabilities, I do not consider the discussion which took place in September 2024 was an assessment of B’s capacity to agree to his care and support plan. The notes of the discussion show that the social worker did not consider a formal assessment was needed at that stage.
38. Mr X considers the Council should not have required a capacity assessment because B showed he understood his care and support needs during the September discussion. However, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 makes clear that capacity is decision-specific. A person may understand some aspects of their care but still lack capacity to make more complex decisions.
39. Mr X argues that the Council should have supported B to make his own decisions before deciding an assessment was needed. The Act does require decision-makers to take all practicable steps to support a person to make a decision before concluding they lack capacity. However, it does not require this support to be given before deciding whether an assessment should be carried out.
40. The Code of Practice says an assessment should be carried out when a person’s capacity is in doubt. The Council has explained why it had doubts about B’s capacity to make decisions about his care planning. I am satisfied this related to the complexity of the decisions and was sufficient to justify carrying out a capacity assessment. I do not consider the Council’s decision to carry out an assessment shows that it assumed B lacked capacity. It shows that it considered there was doubt about B’s ability to make specific decisions.
41. However, once it became clear there was disagreement between Mr X and the Council about B having a capacity assessment, the Council should have taken timely steps to ensure this did not delay the provision of care and support. The Council did not do so, and this contributed to avoidable delay in finalising B’s care and support plan. This was fault.

Back to top

Action

42. The Council has agreed to take the following actions within four weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Mr X and B for the delays in completing B’s care needs assessment and care and support plan. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how councils should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance when making the apology.
• Make a payment of £2000 to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused by delays in providing sufficient funding to meet B’s assessed needs, and for the avoidable strain placed on Mr X providing additional care.
43. The Council has also agreed to take the following actions within eight weeks of my final decision:
• Review its procedures to ensure assessed eligible needs are met promptly, even when further evidence is being gathered.
• Remind relevant staff that mental capacity assessments and continuing healthcare processes should not delay the provision of care.
44. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

45. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr X’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman