Summary: Ms X complained about a delay in reinstating direct payments and providing care, and a delay in making adaptations to her home that were required as a result of a disability. She also complained about the Council not sharing documents and keeping her up to date appropriately. We found there was delay in meeting care needs and arranging adaptations and fault in communication and sharing of information. We also found the Council failed to properly have regard for its Equality Act duties when Ms X asked for reasonable adjustments. We recommended an apology a distress payment and a review of what reasonable adjustments Ms X needed.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained
1. the Council stopped her Direct Payments in 2021 without notice.
2. the Council failed to reinstate her direct payments despite carrying out a number of care act assessments from 2022 onwards. As a result, she has missed opportunities to employ good carers and has been left without care and support. She was also concerned she would not have any care and support in place when she left hospital following an operation.
3. Failed to provide a copy of the Care Act assessments and reviews and records of the social worker’s visits to her. As a result, she was unable to check the documents for discrepancies, give feedback and felt discriminated against.
4. A social worker failed to provide her with a complaints leaflet and withheld confidential information from her. As a result, she struggled to complain.
5. The Council’s complaints team wrongly grouped her complaints into groups of eight and gave them new reference numbers. As a result, the Council missed some of her complaints and the Council’s actions have caused confusion to her. She wants the complaints team to stop changing her words within the complaints.
6. The Council delayed in agreeing a disabled facilities grant for adaptations to her property and carrying out the works. She has been left without the adaptations she needs as a result.
7. Social workers also failed to include her in discussions with other agencies about the DFG adaptations and have withheld information about the proposed adaptations from her. This meant she was only updated on the progress when she made complaints which caused distress to her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. We are only investigating points b to g of the complaint. This is because we have already made a decision on a separate complaint from Ms X on point a) and the complaint happened too long ago for us to consider. We will investigate points b) to g) of her complaint from mid-2023.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Ms X 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

Equality Act

8. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
9. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty. The protected characteristics include disability.
10. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
11. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.

What Happened

12. The information in this statement provides an overview of the key events most relevant to the complaint. It is not intended to set out everything that happened.
13. We investigated the events of Ms X’s complaint from mid-2023 onwards.

Care and Support from 2023 & Care Assessments

14. Ms X complained the Council failed to reinstate her care and support after it was cancelled some years ago. The Council provided copies of three assessments it carried out between 2023 and 2024.
15. An assessment carried out in May 2023 noted the background and that care was stopped previously. The social worker noted Ms X had disputed earlier care assessments, stating they were inaccurate and contained lies. Ms X had also commented that she should have been provided with copies of the assessments as they progressed so she could correct any inaccurate information.
16. A case note in August 2023 recorded that a home visit was carried out to discuss reinstatement of direct payments. It noted there was a need to follow up while officers were on leave.
17. The next case record is from October 2023 when Ms X’s representative made contact with the council to chase adaptations.
18. The outcome of the May 2023 assessment was dated November 2023. It said Ms X had care and support needs and her case should be progressed.
19. In December 2023 a supervision case note stated that there seemed to be no input needed from social services at the moment. The note suggested social services would make contact once adaptations work was done to assess care needs at that time. It stated ‘allocated worker to establish if [Ms X] was paying for any care privately as this will need to be addressed if care needs identified.’ The Council closed its case file at this point, deallocating the assigned social worker.
20. A further conversation record from 5 March 2024 set out Ms X’s health conditions and care needs. It noted the details were taken from an assessment in 2022. The social worker recorded that Ms X needed written correspondence in large font on coloured paper due to dyslexia.
21. The Council told us a social worker met with Ms X on 13 March with her advocate. The Council noted a long-term care package was needed and, at the time of the visit, Ms X had arranged her own private care.
22. A support plan was drawn up on 3 May 2024 and a social worker requested funding to provide direct payments for Ms X to meet her care needs. The request noted Ms X needed support to carry out day to day tasks and meet her personal care needs. The proposed care was to meet those needs via three care visits a day and assistance to access swimming or another activity twice per week. The Council told us this form was not submitted until 6 June 2025. It did not explain why.
23. The Council’s records indicate that the direct payments were agreed in July 2025. However, when Ms X’s representative chased in August 2025 they had not been put in place. In September the Council appears to have set up records and begun making the direct payments.
24. At the end of October the Council requested a face-to-face meeting with Ms X to carry out a financial assessment and establish what (if any) contribution she would need to pay for her care. As at November there is evidence direct payments were in payment. A review meeting was eventually organised for early December after some difficulties contacting Ms X. A later case note indicated there were no concerns with the direct payments account and the next review was scheduled for 2026.
25. The Council told us that it did not send copies of the completed assessments to Ms X at the time they were done. It noted Ms X had previously raised incidents of her neighbour opening her post without permission. So, the Council said this was to prevent a breach of confidentiality. Instead, the Council said it communicated verbally with Ms X during visits and conversations. At the request of her representative the Council sent a copy of her support plan in September 2025.
26. The Council explained, at times, Ms X’s representative and council officers tried to speak with Ms X and sent emails which she did not respond to. The Council indicated there was a lack of engagement with correspondence and contact which had delayed progress at some times.

Providing a complaint leaflet/confusion over complaint handling

27. The Council stated it had received two complaints from Ms X since June 2023. A complaint was received in January 2024 which the Council acknowledged promptly. The Council did not find the complaint clear, so its complaints team contacted social workers to check on her welfare. The social work team visited Ms X with her advocate as a result. The Council says from the meeting it was established Ms X wanted a long-term care package via direct payments. The Council noted, at that time Ms X had arranged private care. It closed the complaint file after writing to explain the ‘current position’. It does not appear a formal complaint response was sent.
28. When we contacted the Council after Ms X brought us this complaint, we initially passed it back to the Council to provide a response first. The Council contacted Ms X but stated it received no response. We began investigating following further contact with Ms X.
29. So, the Council explained that it had closed its files on two complaints. Once after writing to explain its position and once when it received no responses from Ms X. The Council did not group or alter complaints.

Disabled Facilities Grant/Adaptations

30. I understand there have been past assessments which found adaptations were needed at her property. These occurred before the start of our investigation. We have considered the most recent events, from mid-2023, relating to adaptations.
31. The Council’s records indicate that various adaptations were required. In addition, I understand some general repair works were needed. We cannot consider repairs issues, as the Council is acting as a landlord when dealing with housing repairs. All complaints about the Council acting as a landlord must be referred to the Housing Ombudsman. However, we have considered concerns about delays carrying out adaptations Ms X needed as a result of her disabilities.
32. In summer 2023 the Council’s records indicate that due to the scale of the works needed at Ms X’s property, the Council needed her to move out while the work was done. The Council recorded that Ms X did not wish to do this. She asked the Council to do the works around her. I understand this prevented works going ahead at that time, as this would not be practical or safe.
33. In January 2024, Ms X chased the works to her property when also raising other issues with the Council. She stated that her post had been going to her neighbour and they had been opening it. Ms X asked all departments at the Council to stop sending letters, and to send all documents by email instead.
34. In June 2024 council officers began to discuss arrangements for Ms X to be rehoused while work to her property was done. There is evidence officers tried to make contact with Ms X by telephone on numerous occasions between July and December 2024 without success. The Council also sent occasional emails to Ms X and via her representative which it appears Ms X did not respond to.
35. A case note in February 2025 stated Ms X had requested no contact from the housing team by phone, email or post. However, in February 2025 Ms X visited a council drop-in centre to chase the adaptation works. Between February and April 2025 the Council’s response was delayed because it sought an autism support worker to visit Ms X along with contractors to arrange the works.
36. In May 2025 the Council completed a fresh review of what work was needed. The Council met with Ms X and her son and stated adaptation works would start in around four weeks.
37. Ms X was booked into a local hotel so she was familiar with the local area. As at November 2025 her representative noted the work to her property was progressing well and expected to be completed by the end of the year. The Council told us the works were now complete other than a ramp. Access for this was being agreed currently with Ms X.
38. The Council told us that an officer was assigned to keep Ms X updated on the adaptations works on a regular basis to go through an action plan that was created for all of the works, a copy of which was provided to her. The officer also liaised with her representative.

Involving Ms X in discussions with other agencies about adaptations

39. Ms X complained that the Council did not involve her in discussions about adaptations and withheld information about the works from her. I noted above that there was evidence in the period we are investigating of delay while the Council tried to find an autism support worker. This delayed the works and it is not clear Ms X was kept up to date about what was happening at that time.
40. When arranging complex works it is necessary for the Council to share information between departments as various council teams have to be involved to make arrangements and organise the works. We saw evidence that, at times, the Council was trying to make contact with Ms X without success and there appears to have been lack of engagement from Ms X at times. However, we have also seen evidence that the reasonable adjustments Ms X requested were not routinely followed by the Council. For example, the Council tried calling Ms X multiple times when she had told it she wanted written communication as an adjustment. As we state above, there is also evidence that it did not share documents with her.

Reasonable Adjustments

41. We asked the Council what agreed reasonable adjustments were in place from 2023. The Council told us that it did consider whether reasonable adjustments were required. It noted Ms X had difficulties engaging with services. The Council set out various advocacy services that Ms X had used.
42. The assessment the Council conducted in early 2024 stated Ms X needed written correspondence that was in large font and coloured paper, as a reasonable adjustment. The Council did not reference this as an action it had agreed when replying to us. It did not explain why.
43. There was also evidence that, when dealing with adaptations issues, the Council did not initially write to Ms X, it tried to contact her by phone, when she had asked for written correspondence. This indicated that the reasonable adjustments were either not communicated across teams at the Council or not being followed consistently.

Was there fault by the Council

Complaints b) and c) Delay reinstating Direct Payments and failure to send copies of care assessments and key documents

44. We found there was significant delay in reinstating Ms X’s direct payments to allow her to fund care. The Council established Ms X had care and support needs in 2023, but it appeared to close its file in late December 2023 inappropriately, on the basis that care needs would only be considered further once adaptations were complete. It seems clear Ms X had care and support needs that needed to be met both before and after the adaptations. So, closing its file at this point was fault.
45. When the Council carried out a further assessment in March 2024 this was stated to be based on an old assessment from 2022. The assessment recorded little or no contact with Ms X at that time to verify what her needs were. Ms X should have been fully involved at this time, even more so as the Council had recorded she disagreed with the contents of the earlier assessments being referred to. The failure to properly include her in this assessment was fault.
46. Despite documenting a fresh assessment in March 2024 and drawing up a support plan in May 2024, this was not submitted for funding agreement until June 2025, and then not put into payment until September 2025. There appears to have been excessive delay in putting direct payments in place for Ms X after having identified care and support needs that should be met. This was further fault.
47. If there were issues with reinstating direct payments we would have expected the Council to consider putting a commissioned service in place for Ms X rather than leaving her without care. It is not evident that this was considered.
48. I acknowledge, at times, Ms X did not respond to contacts and the Council struggled to engage about issues that needed to be resolved. However, Ms X had also requested, as a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act, that communication with her be in writing and in large font on coloured paper. The Council does not appear to have captured this as a need or, if it decided not to provide it, explained the reason why. The approach it took not to share care assessments, and to deal with things verbally goes directly against the reasonable adjustment Ms X had requested. Based on the information the Council provided, we found the Council failed to have regard for its duties under the Equality Act. If the Council properly adhered to the adjustments requested, it is possible Ms X would have been more informed and able to respond.
49. In addition, the Council accepted it did not provide copies of key documents such as assessments when it should have. This was also fault. The Council cited a concern about her neighbour receiving and opening post. However, it seems the Council did not take opportunities to provide copy documents in other ways. For example, by email or when it visited Ms X. This was despite Ms X raising concerns about the assessments and explicitly asking for copies to be provided. I acknowledge at one point Ms X asked housing not to send emails, post or call her. However, this did not prevent contact from social workers about care needs. The failure to provide copy documents likely meant Ms X struggled to keep abreast of actions being taken and the reasons for these.

Complaint d and e) Providing a complaint leaflet and grouping complaints

50. We found there was no evidence that the Council grouped or changed complaints made by Miss X. However, there appeared to be failure to respond to a complaint the Council cited from January 2024. The Council carried out welfare checks on receipt of the complaint, but it says it wrote explaining the position in response – it was not apparent that this was a formal complaint response. It should have sent a formal complaint response, as it had acknowledged this was a complaint.
51. It is not clear if a social worker failed to provide a complaint leaflet to Ms X. However, Miss X has been able to make complaints so we have not considered this issue further.

Complaint f) and g) Delays and lack of involvement about Adaptations

52. As at 2023 it was clear that fairly significant work was needed to do adaptations to Ms X’s council property because of Ms X’s needs. I found there was no fault in not progressing the works in late 2023, as there is evidence at that time that Ms X would not agree to alternative accommodation while the works took place. The Council could not agree to progress extensive works while she continued to live there.
53. However, I found there was delay in moving forward from early 2024 when Ms X approached the Council and wanted the works to proceed. It was not until early 2025 that the Council progressed this. It is accepted that planning and scheduling such works would take some time. The works were reviewed in May 2025 and I understand they took until late September to complete after Miss X agreed to live in alternative accommodation. Based on the information we have seen, I found there was around a year of avoidable delay in progressing the adaptations.

Back to top

Action

54. Within four weeks of my final decision:
55. The Council should provide a written apology to Miss X for the fault we have identified. The apology should adhere to our guidance on making effective apologies. This can be found on our website, within our Guidance on Remedy here.
56. The Council should make a payment to Ms X of £1500 to recognise the prolonged distress caused by the failure to meet her care needs and the long delay in carrying out adaptations.
57. The Council should invite Ms X to provide the Council with evidence of the private care costs she incurred in the period we investigated. The Council should review this evidence and if Ms X paid for care to meet her assessed needs for some of the period concerned, between mid-2023 and September 2025 the Council should refund the costs Ms X incurred.
58. The Council should review what Reasonable Adjustments Ms X needs and write to her explaining what it will provide as adjustments. If it declines to provide a requested adjustment, or considers it should meet a request in a different way, this should be explained. The agreed reasonable adjustments should be shared with all relevant departments or recorded centrally so that they can be followed consistently by all departments.
59. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

60. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman