Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her care and support assessment. We found avoidable delay by the Council in completing the assessment. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X in recognition of the avoidable distress the delay caused.

The complaint

1. Ms Z, for Mrs X, said the Council had failed to arrange care and support for Mrs X since autumn 2023. And, during a 2025 home visit, it failed to provide information about care for Mrs X or respond to points raised by Ms Z. Ms Z said the health and wellbeing of Mrs X and those supporting her had been adversely affected by the Council’s failure to provide them with appropriate care and support. Ms Z wanted the Council to provide the necessary care and support to Mrs X and explain why she had been waiting for help since autumn 2023. Ms Z also wanted the Council to change the social worker handling Mrs X’s case and further respond to her questions.

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 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 has not given their consent, we may investigate a complaint from a person we decide is a suitable representative. Here, we decided Ms Z was a suitable representative for Mrs X. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26A and 34C, as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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.
6. If we are satisfied with a council’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

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Ms Z and the Council and relevant law, policy and guidance. I gave Ms Z and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

8. Under the Care Act 2014 (the Act), councils will carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support regardless of their finances.
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.
10. Where councils find eligible needs, they then prepare a care and support plan. The plan should consider the person’s needs, what they want to achieve, what they can do by themselves or with existing support, and what care and support may be available locally. The 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.
11. A personal budget may be managed as a direct payment, which is money paid to individuals to meet some or all their eligible care and support needs. Direct payments enable people to arrange their own care and support to meet those needs. People must ask their council for a direct payment as councils must not force people to take direct payments against their will.
12. Section 27 of the Act 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 also consider a light touch review six to eight weeks after agreeing and signing off the plan and personal budget. They must also review if reasonably asked to do so by the adult or a person acting for them.

What happened

13. Mrs X received a medical diagnosis during 2023 and the Council later provided adaptations and equipment to help Mrs X in her home. In autumn 2023, a further Council visit to Mrs X’s home resulted in added help and a recommendation for a care and support assessment of Mrs X’s needs. The Council added Mrs X to its assessment waiting list.
14. In the year that followed, those supporting Mrs X were in touch with the Council about various matters before then raising specific concerns about Mrs X’s outstanding care and support needs. The Council apologised for the delay, moved the case to ‘high priority’, and provided information about other available support.
15. About a month later, the Council appointed a social worker to Mrs X’s case. The social worker contacted Mrs X’s home, introducing themselves and later agreeing a date to visit and assess Mrs X.
16. On arriving at Mrs X’s home, the social worker thought she was meeting the person that had agreed the visit. However, Ms Z was at home and unaware of the visit. The Council said, once aware Ms Z did not know about the visit, the social worker reintroduced themselves and produced their identity card. The social worker then assessed Mrs X in Ms Z’s presence.
17. Ms Z complained to the Council about the social worker’s visit. Ms Z said the social worker did not identify themselves and made an offensive and unprofessional comment. Ms Z also said Mrs X’s assessment involved vague and confusing questions and limited information about her likely care and support.
18. In response, the Council explained the social worker’s misunderstanding on meeting Ms Z. The Council, referring to its notes on Mrs X’s case, also explained why it did not consider the social worker had acted unprofessionally or erred in assessing Mrs X’s needs. The Council did not uphold the complaint.
19. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Ms Z brought her complaint to us saying it was most important that a new social worker reassess Mrs X. Ms Z also wanted a more detailed response to her complaint queries and more information about care and support for Mrs X.
20. Meanwhile, the social worker had again contacted Mrs X’s home and found out about the request for a new social worker. And, around the time Ms Z complained to us, the Council contacted Mrs X’s home to arrange a visit by another social worker to reassess Mrs X.

Post complaint events

21. A different Council social worker carried out a further assessment of Mrs X’s needs. Ms Z was again present throughout the assessment. The outcome of the assessment was like the earlier assessment but included an added two hours a week support for Mrs X.
22. The Council produced a care and support plan for Mrs X. After considering Mrs X’s finances, it also agreed to direct payments. The Council understood Mrs X now had a personal assistant to provide care and support in line with her plan.

What the Council told us

23. The Council said on receiving the recommendation to assess Mrs X in late 2023 it had not later closed or lost her case. Rather it had added Mrs X’s case to its lengthy assessment waitlist. The then extent of the waitlist had led to the extensive delay in assessing Mrs X. The Council said that, possibly, the same needs identified in its 2025 assessments might have been present if it had allocated her case in a timely manner in late 2023. However, on adding Mrs X’s case to the waitlist, it had offered interim commissioned care to address Mrs X’s immediate needs, which offer had been declined.
24. The Council said it continued to face increasing demand for assessments. It had streamlined its procedures to improve its handling of assessment cases. It was also increasing staff numbers to support assessments and prevent lengthy delays. Specifically, it had created a new senior officer post to preview all referrals and ensure the Council quickly processed any urgent cases. However, it recognised it still could not assess all cases in a timely manner and continued to use a waitlist. It therefore now had an officer duty scheme enabling officers to react quickly to changing circumstances and give priority to any case that became urgent. The scheme also kept cases and their priority under review until they were passed to a social worker for assessment.
25. The Council said it was also now proactive in keeping in touch with people waiting for an assessment. This helped in prioritising cases as it ensured contact with people that might not actively seek attention while awaiting an assessment. People awaiting assessment also received Council contact information. This meant they could report changing circumstances, which would trigger an officer reassessment of the risk and priority rating for their case.
26. The Council also said weekly monitoring of the service also now helped it to support its social workers and their case handling. The Council said the steps it was taking were part of its Adult Social Care transformation programme and had led to significant improvements in handling assessments, with wait times reducing.

Consideration

Late complaints

27. The complaint made by Ms Z included the Council’s failure to provide care and support to Mrs X since autumn 2023. We received the complaint in spring 2025 and so it included events that took place more than 12 months earlier (see paragraph 4 of this statement).
28. The evidence showed those supporting Mrs X had kept in touch with the Council during the 15 months, raising various issues about her needs. And throughout the 15 months, due to her medical diagnosis, Mrs X was unlikely to have been in a position to make and pursue a complaint. So, overall, I found good reasons to exercise my discretion to investigate the complaint back to autumn 2023.

Mrs X’s assessment

29. Government guidance says councils should complete assessments in a suitable and reasonable time, taking account of the urgency of needs (see paragraph 9). We expect councils to carry out assessments in a time proportionate to the complexity of the needs and normally within four to six weeks. To meet acceptable administrative standards, we also expect councils to keep in touch with people awaiting an assessment, letting them know about timescales and how long their assessment will take.
30. Here, over a year passed between the Council receiving the request for and carrying out a full care and support assessment for Mrs X. I recognised both the pressures the Council faced from increasing demand and its work to manage and reduce wait times. However, in exceeding a year, I found there was avoidable delay and so fault by the Council in assessing Mrs X’s needs (see paragraph 2).
31. Without an assessment, it is not usually possible for us to determine, even on balance of probability, what, if any, care a person would have received but for a council’s delay. And, here, the Council said its offer of interim support pending an assessment had been declined. Those supporting Mrs X, including Ms Z, had also, despite their own health and other needs, continued to support Mrs X during her year’s wait. However, the avoidable delay would likely have adversely impacted Mrs X and those supporting her, causing avoidable distress. I therefore found the Council’s avoidable delay in completing Mrs X’s assessment caused her and those supporting her injustice.

Ms Z’s questions

32. Ms Z also complained of the inadequacy of the Council’s information about both care and support for Mrs X and in its complaint response.
33. I recognised Ms Z found the Council’s information inadequate. I was not present for the Council’s first 2025 home visit assessment, which led to the complaint, and so could not know what was said. I considered the social worker’s assessment report and the Council’s response to the complaint, which included information from the home visit. I found no evidence the Council fell below acceptable administrative standards in carrying out the assessment or in responding to questions including the points set out in Ms Z’s complaint. I therefore found no fault here.

Back to top

Action

34. Having found fault causing injustice (see paragraphs 30 and 31), I considered our guidance on remedies. The Council had reassessed Mrs X. I therefore found no need now to recommend corrective action. However, to address the injustice in a proportionate, reasonable and appropriate manner, the Council agreed my recommendation to also (within 30 working days of this decision statement):

• send a written apology; and
• make a symbolic payment of £500,

to Ms Z, for Mrs X, in recognition of the avoidable distress caused by its avoidable delay in completing her care and support assessment.

35. The Council should consider our guidance on remedies before complying with paragraph 34 as it includes information about making effective apologies.
36. The Council also agreed to provide us with evidence of its compliance with the actions set out in paragraph 34.
37. I considered what the Council said about its transformation plan (see paragraphs 24 to 26). I was satisfied the Council was acting to improve its assessment service. I therefore decided that, at this point, there was no need to make added service improvement recommendations.

Back to top

Decision

38. I found fault causing injustice. The Council agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman