Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to arrange a day centre placement for her son, Mr Y. She also complains about the Council’s poor communication. The Council failed to arrange a day centre placement for Mr Y after it was approved in April 2024 until March 2025. It then provided a reduced number of days. This is fault. The Council failed to properly communicate with Miss X. This also amounts to fault. The delays caused distress and frustration and Mr Y missed out on a day centre placement for nearly a year. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and Mr Y and make payments to recognise the distress and harm caused and loss of provision.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains on behalf of her son, Mr Y. She says the Council failed to secure a day centre placement for Mr Y for over 7 years. She also complains about the Council’s poor communication. Miss X says this deprived Mr Y of support he was entitled to, causing distress and hardship.

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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. Miss X was seeking a day centre placement for Mr Y for 7 years. I have limited the investigation from April 2024 onwards, 12 months before the date Miss X complained to us. This is in line with our guidance as Miss X could have reasonably complained to us sooner as the issue was ongoing for 7 years.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Relevant guidance and legislation

Assessment

8. 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.
9. 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

10. The Care Act 2014 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. 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.

Reviews

11. 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

12. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
13. The Council reviewed Mr Y’s care plan and financial assessment in April 2024. A new plan was authorised in June 2024. It changed his support from having 1:1 support in the community to include three days a week at a day centre.
14. The Council contacted the day centre and Mr Y’s care provider in July 2024 to arrange attendance and propose a gradual start of two days a week. The day centre offered a start date, but the Council was not able to arrange transport. The Adults and Health Scrutiny Panel approved Mr Y’s placement in August 2024, but a start date was not confirmed due to the delay with arranging transport.
15. The social worker tried to arrange transport, but no meaningful progress was made until January 2025, when Miss Y made a formal complaint to the Council. Mr Y’s social worker left their role. The Council apologised and a new social worker was allocated to Mr Y’s case.
16. The new social worker reassessed Mr Y’s case in February 2025 and negotiated a reduced plan for Mr Y to start attending his day centre placement for one day per week, increasing later. The care provider was able to arrange transport for one day a week using its private vehicle. The care plan for one day per week was authorised and commissioned and Mr Y started attending his placement in March 2025. The social worker ended their involvement with Mr Y’s case.
17. In May 2025, the day centre informed the Council that Mr Y was engaging well with the placement and requested to increase attendance to two/three days per week as originally planned. The day centre also offered to trial using its private transport for Mr Y. But the Council said no increase could occur until his case was reallocated and a new care plan review and panel decision was made to approve funding.

Findings

18. Mr Y’s care support plan, including a day centre placement for three days per week, was agreed in June 2024 with panel approval gained in August 2024. But the Council failed to implement the changes. It failed to arrange the necessary transport for Mr Y to attend. Mr Y missed out on the placement for almost a year after approval as a result. This caused undue harm to Mr Y as he lost out on a year of social interaction with his peers.
19. There were delays in the progression of Mr Y’s case and the Council failed to properly update Miss X on the progress. Mr Y’s social worker changed a number of times. This delayed progression. The Council accepted in its complaint response that Mr Y’s social workers failed to do proper handovers to ensure that a day centre placement continued to be sought. The Council failed to properly communicate internally and also update Miss X. Miss X chased the Council throughout this period. This caused undue distress and frustration to Miss X.
20. The Council only made meaningful progression after Miss X made a formal complaint. The Council temporarily reduced the approved three days per week placement to one day as the care provider could only offer transport for one day. Miss X said she still wants Mr Y to attend three days a week.
21. It was the Council’s responsibility to arrange alternative transport for Mr Y to attend three days per week. Although some support was provided from March 2025 onwards, it failed to provide the three days Mr Y was entitled to and failed to keep it under review and increase days as it said it would.

Injustice and remedy

22. The Council should apologise to Miss X and Mr Y for the delays and poor communication. We consider a payment of £200 for Miss X suitable for the distress and frustration caused by the delay in arranging the day centre placement.
23. The delay in arranging the placement meant Mr Y’s social skills regressed as he was isolated and missed out on social interaction with his peers for a year. He then received only one day instead of the three days he was originally entitled to. This is a significant injustice. We consider a payment of £1000 suitable for the harm caused to Mr Y, recognising his vulnerability and the duration of the delay.

Back to top

Action

24. Within one month of my final decision, the Council should remedy the injustice caused by issuing:
• An apology to Miss X and Mr Y for the delay in arranging a day centre placement. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay Miss X £200 for distress and frustration caused by the delays.
• Pay £1000 (to Miss X as Mr Y’s appointee) for the harm caused to Mr Y by the loss of provision.
25. Within three months of my final decision, the Council should:
• Review the Council’s handover process for when relevant staff leave or change. Ensure relevant staff are properly updated on cases and any outstanding actions to be taken to ensure continuity.
• Review its process for sourcing and arranging transport for service users.
• Remind relevant staff of the importance in provide updates to service users/relatives, particularly when there are ongoing delays.
26. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman