Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of Ms Y and Mr Z about the Council’s handling of a reassessment of Ms Y’s care needs. We find no fault in the Council’s decision not to fund 24-hour care. However, we find fault in the significant delays in completing the reassessment and in providing assistive technology. As a result, Mr Z had to continue caring for Ms Y longer than he wished, causing him avoidable distress, uncertainty, and risk of harm. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms Y and Mr Z, arrange for the outstanding assistive technology to be installed, and assign a named social worker to oversee future care planning.

The complaint

1. Ms X, representing the family, complained on behalf of Ms Y and Mr Z about the Council’s actions following Mr Z’s 2022 request for a review of Ms Y’s care needs. In particular, she complained about:
1. the time taken to complete the review;
2. the Council’s decision not to fund 24-hour care despite Ms Y having eligible needs; and
3. the Council’s failure to provide assistive technology.
2. Ms X said these matters have had a significant financial impact on Ms Y, who has continued to pay the shortfall in her funded care hours. She also says they have caused Mr Z distress while he continues to provide high levels of support.

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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

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.

Direct payments

9. Direct payments are monetary payments made to individuals who ask for them to meet some or all of their eligible care and support needs. They enable people to arrange their own care and support to meet those needs. The council must ensure people have relevant and timely information about direct payments 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

10. Below is a summary of key events based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.  
11. In July 2022, Mr Z asked the Council to reassess his daughter Ms Y’s care and support needs, as he intended to step down from his caring role by his next birthday in February 2023.
12. Later that month, the Council allocated a social worker to begin the reassessment.
13. In July 2023, the Integrated Quality Assurance Meeting (IQAM) a panel of senior managers in Adult Social Care which reviews care packages to ensure they meet needs and represent value for money, considered the social workers reassessment, alongside commissioned reports on Ms Y’s health needs. The panel concluded Ms Y did not require constant supervision and that her care needs could be met through 16 hours of daily support and the use of assistive technology during the night.
14. In August, the Council installed some of the assistive technology.
15. In February 2024, Ms X complained to the Council about delays in completing the reassessment.
16. In March, the Council issued a response, partially upholding the complaint. It accepted that the reassessment was taking too long, confirmed a new social worker had been allocated, and said a home visit was scheduled for later that month.
17. Later that month, Ms X escalated her complaint, stating it should have been upheld in full.
18. In May, the Council issued a further response, this time fully upholding the complaint. It explained there had been several factors requiring clarification about Ms Y’s needs, which had delayed the process. The Council said it would carry out a learning review of the timeline to identify where delays had occurred and expected the reassessment to be finalised later that month.
19. In July, Ms X raised objections to the draft care and support plan, saying Ms Y required 24-hour care.
20. In October, the Council completed Ms Y’s reassessment.
21. In February 2025, further discussions took place about outstanding assistive technology.
22. In March, Ms X brought the complaint to the Ombudsman.
23. In June, the Council made referrals for the installation of the assistive technology.
24. In July, the Council finalised Ms Y’s care and support plan, confirming the agreed level of care at 16 hours per day. The plan also documented several additional referrals, including to occupational therapy, reablement, continence, advocacy, and assistive technology services, aimed at promoting Ms Y’s independence, confidence, and consideration of future care options. It stated the effectiveness of the assistive technology would be monitored regularly, with formal reviews at six weeks and six months to determine whether the support arrangements and technology were meeting her outcomes. The plan further noted that Ms Y’s night-time movement would be monitored to assess how often she gets up and what level of night-time support may be required.
25. In response to my enquiries, the Council said the delay between Mr Z’s reassessment request in July 2022 and the final care plan in July 2025 resulted from the need to coordinate with other services (including occupational therapy, physiotherapy and telecare), disputes over the reassessment outcome and Ms Y’s financial contributions, senior management decisions, and technical problems with its care planning systems.
26. The Council also acknowledged delays in providing assistive technology. It said these were caused by staff shortages, waiting for Mr Z’s consent to install equipment, and the technical problems with its care planning systems. It confirmed that some of the assistive technology identified to meet Ms Y’s needs is outstanding but should be resolved soon.

My findings

Time taken to complete the review

27. Mr Z gave the Council significant notice of his intention to step down from his caring role and requested a reassessment in July 2022. The Council did not complete Ms Y’s final care plan until July 2025. Although there is no statutory timescale for completing a care and support assessment, the statutory guidance says it should be completed in an appropriate and reasonable timescale. Three years is not reasonable in the circumstances of Ms Y’s case. This delay was fault. It meant additional support was not provided in time for Mr Z to step back from caring. As a result, Mr Z continued providing significant care longer than he wished to, causing his avoidable distress, uncertainty, and risk of harm.
28. The Council has accepted fault and agreed to backdate direct payments to July 2023. It has also said it will assign a named social worker to oversee future care planning. I welcome these steps, but they do not address the personal impact on Mr Z.

Decision not to fund 24-hour care

29. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
30. The Council’s decision that Ms Y did not require 24-hour care was made by its IQAM panel, which reviewed multiple assessments and professional reports before determining that Ms Y’s needs could be met with daily support and assistive technology during the night. The care plan included provisions for monitoring her night-time movement and reviewing the package after further evidence was gathered about how effectively the technology met her needs. On the information available, I have seen no indication that the decision was made without appropriate assessment or consideration. While Mr Z strongly disagreed with the outcome, a difference of opinion alone does not in itself amount to fault. I find no fault in how the Council reached this decision.

Assistive technology

31. Assistive technology was recommended in July 2023, but not all the equipment was provided promptly. Some items remain outstanding more than two years later. This delay is fault. It meant Mr Z had to continue providing support that should have been supplemented by technology. This caused Mr Z avoidable distress, uncertainty, and risk of harm. The Council has acknowledged fault and committed to ensuring installation of the agreed technology. While this will address the outstanding provision, it does not remedy the impact already caused to Mr Z.

Back to top

Action

32. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Ms Y and Mr Z in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
• pay Ms Y the proposed backdated direct payments;
• pay Mr Z a symbolic remedy of £2,500 to recognise the avoidable distress, uncertainty, and risk of harm caused by the delay in the assessment process, and installation of assistive technology;
• arrange for the outstanding assistive technology to be installed; and
• assign a named social worker to oversee future care planning.
33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman