Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his late father, Mr Y’s, care. We found fault because the Council failed to communicate in an accurate or timely manner. We have also found it failed to act and respond to complaints in a timely manner. This caused Mr X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make symbolic payments to him and review the failings in this case.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s actions related to his late father, Mr Y’s, care. Specifically, Mr X complains:
• the amount of hours proposed for Mr Y’s care and support plan was reduced multiple times;
• hours in the agreed care and support plan were not enough to offer adequate support to Mr Y;
• direct payments took too long to organise;
• the Council did not increase care hours when Mr X provided evidence Mr Y needed more assistance;
• the Council took too long to respond to his complaint; and
• communication has been poor overall.
2. Mr X says this caused him avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. He says it affected Mr Y’s quality of life.

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 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)
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(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. My investigation begins when Mr Y’s case was allocated for a Care Act assessment at the beginning of May 2024.
7. My investigation ends when the Council sent Mr X its final complaint response in mid-April 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have considered all the information Mr X provided.
9. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
10. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Care Act 2014

11. 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.
12. The Act 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.

Care and Support Statutory Guidance

13. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance (the CSSG) provides guidance linked to the Act. The CSSG sets out how a local authority should go about performing its care and support responsibilities. It explains that whenever a local authority carries out any care and support functions it must act to promote wellbeing.

Direct payments

14. A direct payment (DP) is a monetary payment made to individuals who ask for them to meet some or all of their eligible care and support needs. DPs enable people to arrange their own care and support to meet those needs. The council must ensure people have relevant and timely information about DPs so they can decide whether to request them. If they do so, the council should support them to use and manage the payment properly.

What happened

15. I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened. Mr X is making this complaint on behalf of his late father, Mr Y. Mr Y had a range of health conditions, some of which were age-related.

2024

16. After a request for a Care Act assessment (the assessment) on Mr Y, the Council allocated his case to an officer (Officer J) to carry this out. Officer J contacted Mr X on 3 May 2024 and made a home visit to Mr Y to begin the assessment on 8 May.
17. Officer J and Mr X continued to discuss the case throughout May and into June. On 21 June and after discussing the hours Officer J proposed for Mr Y, Mr X disagreed. He said Mr Y required eight hours of support per day, the Council suggested around two hours. Mr X asked to speak to Officer J’s manager.
18. Mr X was clear that he wanted to organise Mr Y’s care himself and use the DP route to do this.
19. On 22 July, Mr X emailed Officer J to again ask to speak to her manager.
20. Mr X and Officer J communicated on 1 August. Mr X again disagreed with the hours Officer J proposed, which was two and a half per day (17.5 per week). He still believed Mr Y required eight hours support per day.
21. On 7 August, Mr X sent details to the Council of how many support hours his own care provider (Agency A) thought Mr Y might need if they started to work with him. This was based on a discussion with Mr X and totalled 49.5 hours per week. Mr X later provided information to the Council that Mr Y also required a further eight care hours per week so he could be supported to look around the town centre shops at weekends.
22. On 13 August, Officer J spoke to a day centre Mr X wanted Mr Y to attend as part of his support, which would be in addition to the hours already discussed. Later that day, Officer J recorded that she emailed Mr X with proposed hours for Mr Y. Notes do not show the amount suggested. These notes were added to Mr Y’s file in March 2025.
23. On 14 August, Mr X responded to an email from Officer J and thanked her for confirming a care package of 38.5 hours per week for Mr Y and said he would start arranging care. The next day Officer J replied to say those were the proposed hours but the case would need to go to panel to be agreed. Officer J said she did not know how many hours would be approved and told Mr X he would need to wait for approval before arranging any care hours.
24. On 30 August, Officer J emailed Mr X to confirm a care package of 27.75 hours per week had been submitted for DP funding approval. She said the care package was scheduled to start on 16 September and the DPs may start earlier or later than this.
25. Mr X immediately emailed Officer J back to say this was not the 38.5 hours she had previously agreed to submit and again asked for her manager’s contact details. He said he had been asking for contact details for three months and had still not been given them.
26. After a call to the Council’s social care team that afternoon, a manager, Officer K, called Mr X back to discuss matters. Officer K said she would reallocate the case to a different officer to reassess Mr Y’s needs, Officer L, as Officer J was now away from the office.
27. Officer L made two visits to Mr Y in early and mid-September to reassess his needs. Officer L clarified the level of support he believed Mr Y needed which was still lower than Mr X wanted.
28. On 9 October the DP team emailed Mr X to say when he returned the necessary forms to them, they would set up DPs. Mr X then emailed the DP team, Officer J and Officer L to say he would organise care for Mr Y to start the following week. Officer L emailed later that day to say the Council would be funding 25.5 hours per week, as a result of his recent assessment. Mr X again stated that he believed his father needed 38.5 hours of care per week.
29. At the beginning of November, Mr X registered a complaint with the Council. Amongst other things, he was unhappy because:
• his requests to speak to line managers had not led to timely contact;
• he was unhappy with the length of the assessment process and at the amount of care and support hours Mr Y had been assessed as eligible for;
• he felt that Officer L had been assigned to the case to reduce hours already agreed and confirmed; and
• there had been a delay in organising DPs.
30. On 11 November, Officer L asked to present Mr Y’s case to the Council’s funding panel. Three days later, the funding panel agreed a care package of 23.5 hours per week. Funding was backdated to 14 October when Mr X had organised care to start.
31. The DP team emailed Mr X on 15 November to advise they would be setting up payments and asked Mr X to return signed contract information. Mr X replied to advise that he had not yet received a copy of any care and support plan.
32. Officer L completed the Council’s first care and support plan for Mr Y on 19 November. He emailed Mr X on 20 November to confirm the hours agreed at the panel.
33. Officer L and Mr X communicated about Mr Y’s care hours at the beginning of December. Officer L asked Mr X to get Agency A to detail why the package and hours agreed were not sufficient and he would then evaluate it.

2025

34. At the end of January, Officer L emailed Agency A to enquire how Mr Y’s care package was going.
35. At the beginning of February, Agency A said they were regularly going over the allocated hours in Mr Y’s plan. Officer K asked the agency to provide electronic care log records to demonstrate this. Agency A provided paper logs, so Officer L again asked for electronic log in and out records. Agency A said it would move over to electronic logs.
36. Agency A sent Officer L electronic logs at the beginning of March.
37. After a chase from Mr X at the beginning of April, Officer L called him to discuss matters. Officer L advised he would need to visit Mr Y at home to review and assess how and why his carers needed the amount of time they did to provide support. Mr X wanted the care package increased by at least two hours per day, Officer L said review may lead to a 30-minute increase. Officer L explained that his availability meant he needed to visit that day or the next day or it would then be a few weeks until he could attend. Mr X asked to speak to Officer L’s manager.
38. Officer L’s manager called Mr X but without success.
39. The Council sent its stage one final complaint response to Mr X in mid-April 2025. The response replied in detail to each of the 19 points Mr X had raised and signposted him to us.
40. After the end of my investigation, Officer L continued to ask Agency A for electronic care logs for Mr Y’s care. He asked for electronic records which would show log in and out times and the GPS distance from the property at which carers were allowed to electronically log into the care call. Discussions continued about a home visit to review Mr Y’s care.

Analysis

Background information

41. Where someone has died, we will not normally seek a remedy for injustice caused to that person in the same way as we might for someone who is still living. We would not expect a public or private body to make a payment to someone’s estate. Therefore, if the impact of a fault was on someone who has died, we will not recommend an organisation make a payment in recognition of, for example, the impact of poor care that person might have received while they were alive. This is because the person who received the poor care cannot benefit from such a payment. However, if we consider the person who has complained to us has been adversely affected by seeing the impact of that poor care on their relative, we may recommend a symbolic payment to them as a remedy for their own distress.
42. A decision about what a suitable remedy should be for a complaint is one for us to decide. Each case is considered on its own merits. Our guidance on remedies for staff sets out the general principles that investigators should apply when deciding what recommendations to make.

Care and support plan hours

43. Mr X repeatedly expressed his unhappiness that the original package of 38.5 hours of care per week he believed was being taken to panel by Officer J was reduced before she confirmed she intended to submit 27.75 hours per week to the panel.
44. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it had no evidence of any assessment by Officer J indicating that 38.5 hours had been proposed and this did not reflect the intention of the Council. The Council said a miscommunication had arisen between Officer J and Mr X.
45. I note the Council’s comments and also acknowledge multiple previous communications between Mr X and Officer J about disagreements over the amount of care hours being suggested. Evidence shows that whenever proposed hours in the care package were broken down by Officer J, they were substantially lower than the 38.5-hour package Mr X discusses.
46. Although records say the proposed hours were shared with Mr X on 13 August 2024, I have seen no direct evidence of this other than it being referred to. Officer J’s email on 14 August 2024 does clearly respond to agree Mr X’s statement thanking her for confirming a proposal of 38.5 hours per week.
47. I am satisfied that agreeing with Mr X’s statement and then emailing him at the end of August to confirm she intended to submit a package with a lower amount of hours without explanation of any change was fault. This poor communication misled Mr X and caused him avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.
48. Officer J’s confirmation at the end of August 2024 of a 27.75 hour proposed care package is more closely aligned to the multiple conversations between her and Mr X, prior to the email sent on 13 August. Whilst I acknowledge Mr X’s deep frustration at this, a care package of 38.5 hours per week was not presented to panel and therefore it was never agreed to be delivered.
49. I am satisfied it did not cause Mr Y an injustice as the hours had not been agreed at panel and so he was not at that time due any care hours.
50. Mr X was also unhappy that Officer L reduced Officer J’s late-August proposal of 27.75 hours when he reassessed Mr Y during September 2024. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed that Officer L had been assigned to the case as Officer J was away from the office. Other evidence shows a reassessment was carried out due to Mr X’s continued disagreement with the 27.75-hour package Officer J had advised of via email.
51. I am satisfied the Council’s stance to reassess Mr Y was a reasonable step to take given the difference between Mr X’s view of the amount of care needed and Officer J’s final confirmed proposal. Being new to the case, I am also satisfied Officer L took swift action to begin the reassessment process.
52. I note Mr X’s later comments to the Council that Officers K and L intended only to continue reducing the amount of hours suggested for Mr Y and that hours proposed were not enough to offer adequate support.
53. A difference of opinion is not evidence of fault. I am satisfied the Council made professional judgements based on the assessment visits to calculate the hours needed to provide support for Mr Y’s eligible needs. This was a decision for the Council to make and I find no procedural fault in its actions to assess Mr Y.

Direct payments

54. Mr X complained that DPs had taken too long to set up. Having reviewed the evidence on file, there was confusion about when DPs would be started for Mr Y’s support package. This confusion was caused by the Council.
55. The DP team discussed matters with Mr X on 9 October 2024 and said that once he had returned the completed forms it would set up the DPs. This led Mr X to believe the payments for care were being organised, so he emailed the DP team, Officer J and Officer L to say he would organise Mr Y’s care to start the following week on 14 October. It was only later that day that Officer L said the Council would be funding 25.5 hours per week.
56. At this time, Officer L did not tell Mr X the case had not yet been to panel and the hours had not yet been agreed, nor is there any evidence of Mr X knowing the amount which would be paid per hour. Mr X therefore continued to act on the basis the hours were in place and funding would follow based on his communications with both the DP team and Officer L.
57. When the case was put to panel in November, the DP team shared with Mr X what had been agreed, what the hourly rate was and that the package had been backdated to 14 October 2024.
58. I am therefore satisfied the DPs were set up as soon as reasonably practicable after the care package had been agreed. However, the confusion caused by the DP team and Officer L in their communications with Mr X on 9 October was fault. This caused avoidable frustration to Mr X as he was under the impression the care package had already been agreed. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.
59. I am satisfied there was no injustice to Mr Y as the agreed package was backdated to the day Mr X had organised it to start.

Requests for increased care and support plan hours

60. Mr X was unhappy the Council did not increase care hours when he says Agency A provided evidence the agreed care package was insufficient.
61. Evidence shows Officer L reacted to Mr X’s initial concern raised in December 2024 by asking Mr X for evidence from Agency A. Officer L then chased required evidence of Agency A’s care records at the end of January 2025 when nothing had yet been sent to him.
62. When Agency A sent paper records rather than the requested electronic ones, Officer L immediately clarified and repeated his request for electronic records, explaining his reasoning for doing so.
63. However, when the electronic logs were received at the beginning of March 2025, there is no evidence of any action on the case until Mr X chased Officer L at the beginning of April 2025. I am satisfied this month of inaction was fault. The inaction caused avoidable frustration and uncertainty to Mr X. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.
64. When Officer L discussed the care records with Mr X, he made it clear to Mr X that care logs were not sufficient to increase the care package by two hours per day and that a home visit would be required to consider a 30-minute daily increase.
65. I am satisfied that during the period of my investigation the Council was taking relevant steps to address Mr X’s concerns and was open to reviewing the care package in place. On this basis, during this time, I cannot say the Council acted with fault in terms of failing to consider evidence presented or Mr X’s viewpoint. The Council was entitled to visit Mr Y to see the care in practice, despite Mr X’s opinion that the care logs were enough to show increased hours were needed. A difference of opinion is not evidence of fault.
66. By mid-April 2025 and when my investigation ends, discussions were still ongoing about whether the care package was sufficient and the home visit Officer L wanted to carry out.

Complaint responses

67. The Council’s policy states that it will respond to complaints in 20 working days. The Council should have responded to Mr X’s complaint by 4 December 2024, or advised him it would need longer.
68. Mr X approached us in March 2025 after he had previously chased the Council for its overdue response in December 2024. When we enquired with it, the Council told us in mid-March 2025 that Mr X would get his response by 26 March.
69. Instead, the Council did not send Mr X’s complaint response until 16 April 2025. By now, it was 112 working days since he had made his complaint over five months earlier.
70. In response to my enquiries, the Council acknowledged the delay fell short of expected standards and said it was due to significant service demands at the time. It said it remained actively engaged in addressing Mr X’s concerns during the waiting period.
71. I note the Council’s comments, however, I have seen no evidence of it advising Mr X of the continued delays, in line with its policy. This and the delayed response were fault on the Council’s part. It caused Mr X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Communication

72. Mr X asked Officer J to speak to her manager on 21 June, 22 July and 30 August 2024. These requests are recorded in case records. Mr X says he had asked for manager contact more often than this and from earlier than June 2024. No discussion with managers about his requests or response to them are recorded. Mr X eventually received a manager call back after he made a telephone call to the Council’s social care team on the afternoon of 30 August 2024.
73. In response to my enquiries, the Council said that Officer J had consulted with Officer K during the assessment process and evidence showed there was continuous communication between Officer J and Mr X during Officer J’s time on the case. I acknowledge multiple communications back and forth between Mr X and Officer J.
74. However, there is a period of one month from late June to late July 2024 where there is no recorded action on the case despite being in the middle of the assessment process. Late July’s case record shows a chase from Mr X asking for manager contact but no proactive contact was made with Mr X from 21 June to 1 August 2024.
75. I have seen no evidence of Officer J telling Mr X that he would not receive contact from her manager despite his requests.
76. At the end of August 2024, Officer J said the 27.75 hours of weekly care was scheduled to begin on 16 September. At this time, the case had not been to the funding panel which meant the hours had not been agreed and no date of the funding panel was advised, despite Officer J saying the package would begin in two weeks’ time.
77. Regardless of the exact number of times Mr X asked to speak to a manager, I am satisfied these events show that communication was not as it should have been which leads me to a finding of fault. This caused Mr X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty whilst he made requests that were ignored and was given information that was not accurate. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.
78. In my enquiries, I also asked the Council why multiple case entries by both Officers J and L were not made at the time the events occurred in summer 2024 but instead some months later in March 2025. The Council said entries were made following quality assurance audits and to provide full transparency during the complaint process.
79. Some entries relating to August 2024’s communications over whether 38.5 hours were being proposed were recorded in March 2025, over seven months later. Officer J’s notes said she had shared proposed hours with Mr X but there is no evidence of this. The Council should try and finalise entries as soon as reasonably possible so that notes are contemporaneous. I am satisfied that recording entries significantly after the event has contributed to the confusion over the alleged proposed 38.5 care hours as it records events which there is no linked evidence for. This is fault. It caused Mr X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.
80. Having reassessed Mr Y in September 2024, Officer L sent the proposed hours in an email to Mr X on 9 October. As discussed above, Mr X took this to mean the care had been agreed. I have seen no evidence of any communication between Officer L and Mr X from 9 October until a week after the panel meeting when Officer L shared the agreed care hours with him and a copy of Mr Y’s care and support plan.
81. I am satisfied this is again evidence of poor communication. This was fault. It caused avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty for Mr X. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

82. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults I have identified, the Council will take the following action within four weeks of the date of my final decision:
• apologise to Mr X for the identified injustice;
• make a symbolic payment to Mr X of £150 to recognise the identified injustice; and
• make a symbolic payment to Mr X of £150 to recognise the time and trouble in progressing his complaint.
83. Within three months of the date of my final decision, the Council should complete a review of its handling of this case to identify failings and how improvements can be made to address these. The review should set out how it will share learning with relevant staff.
84. The apology written should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies on making an effective apology.
85. Payments made are in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
86. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

87. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman