Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to respond to complaints, failed to adhere to her agreed reasonable adjustments and failed to carry out a suitable care needs assessment. She also queried its actions about Direct Payments. We found no fault in the Council’s complaint responses. We found there was some failure to adhere to agreed Reasonable Adjustments and some delays in contacting her at times, but the Council had offered an assessment. We recommended an apology and that the council offered another fresh assessment. We found no fault regarding direct payments.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that:
• the Council failed to respond to a complaint she made in June 2024.
• the Council failed to complete an assessment of her needs. Also, when considering her needs the Council has not done this properly because her needs relate to her Autism which the Council has not adequately considered.
• Various staff have not met the reasonable adjustments agreed regarding the communication process with her and she has found contact with the Council difficult as a result.
• the Council has given conflicting information about what she can use her Direct Payments for and it unreasonably stated it would take back money from the Direct Payment account if it was unused.

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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. I am investigating the issues of Ms X’s complaint from March 2024 (12 months before she complied to us) until June 2025 when the Council responded to her complaint.

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 the comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Council Complaints Policy

7. The Council’s complaint policy sets out three stages.

• Initially a problem should be raised with the service. They will respond to try and resolve it.
• If someone is unhappy with the response they can raise a Stage One complaint. This will be responded to within 20 working days if it relates to Adult Social Care issues. If fault is found the Council will say what it will do to put things right.
• If someone remains unhappy they can raise a Stage Two complaint. A response will be sent in 20 working days to say what the Council found. If it considers the Stage One response was correct it will say why. It may tell someone about other places they can go for help. If fault is found the response the council will explain why and what it will do.

8. If someone disagrees with a response from the Council at Stage Two of the complaints process, they can come to the Ombudsman.

The Equality Act 2010

9. 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, and the carrying out of public functions.
10. 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 (whether physical or relating to mental health).

Reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities

11. The Equality Act states that where a practice places a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with those who are not disabled, reasonable steps should be taken to avoid the disadvantage.
12. While councils have to make reasonable adjustments to overcome a disadvantage suffered by a disabled person, they do not have to agree to do specifically what is requested by someone. They may decide to provide other reasonable steps to overcome the disadvantage for the person concerned.
13. 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.

Assessment

14. 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.

Direct Payments (DPs)

15. 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

The Council’s Response to Ms X’s June and November 2024 complaints

16. Miss X complained to the Council at the end of June 2024. She stated she had not heard from her social worker and she did not like going through the contact centre/switchboard to contact someone. She stated she should just be transferred and not have to go through data protection measures.
17. The Council’s records indicate Ms X had chased for contact when her social worker was on annual leave in June. They showed Ms X had not heard from her after she returned. Ms X’s contact was recorded as a complaint, and a response was due by 25 July.
18. A senior officer spoke to Ms X on 8 August in response to her complaint. They stated the social worker had tried to make contact. On the call, Ms X noted her social worker had sent a text but she could not read texts/emails well enough to respond. She also stated she could not access emails due to a broken phone. Ms X told the officer she felt as though social care staff did not care and staff were not adhering to reasonable adjustments agreed. She stated she should have three points of contact and if someone sends her a text they should follow up with a call so she can say if reading it will be an issue. Ms X asked that texts and emails are bullet-pointed so key information was clear or to receive a call to explain things.
19. The officer apologised for the delay in calling her about the complaint and explained some annual leave caused delays. The officer also explained the timescales within the council complaint procedure. The notes of the call stated Ms X understood what was said, and if things were explained like this, it was fine.
20. The Council’s records indicate the Council responded to the June contact as a report and request for a service, rather than a complaint.
21. The Council’s records show it also received a complaint from Ms X in November and a written response was sent to the complaint on 22 November.

Adherence to agreed Reasonable Adjustments (RAs)

22. Ms X complained to us that the Council had not adhered to the RAs that she needed, so communication with the Council had been difficult.
23. The Council told us it has been providing reasonable adjustments for Ms X throughout the period we are investigating. The Council provided a document dated June 2025 documenting the reasonable adjustments it was making, which it said had been consistent since 2024. In addition, it provided a copy of her support plan which documented some of the same RAs, stating they had been in place since January 2023.
24. The adjustments related to how and when Ms X should be contacted, where face to face meetings could be held and how written information should be presented. For example, use of SMS messages, size and spacing of text and the colour of background paper.
25. It is clear the Council understands its obligations under the Equality Act and that it is open to and has been making RAs for Ms X. However, Ms X complained that the RAs she needed had not been met.
26. The Council told us it had consistently adhered to the documented RAs. It says at times Ms X had been inconsistent about what RAs she needed, sometimes complaining that the Council had not done things that had not been agreed.
27. We looked at the Council’s case records to see what they recorded about contacts. There appears to be evidence, during 2024 that RAs have not been followed. Examples of this are the Council’s letters to Ms X on 25 October from a social worker and 22 November in response to her complaint. These aren’t in bullet point form, they appear not to be in large font and it is not clear if they were sent on coloured paper. Also, it is not clear from the Council’s records if letters sent to Ms X by finance in or around September, and a letter sent to Ms X in December were in a format that met her RAs.
28. More recently, the Council’s records show instances where the Council has clearly had regard for and followed the RAs agreed with Ms X. In recent contacts with Ms X in 2025, her social worker noted that they had made adjustments in their contacts with her. A complaint response sent in June 2025 was also sent in bullet point form.
29. We noted that Ms X had stated, on some occasions that her RAs were not being met. For example, in August 2024 Ms X complained that a social worker had not followed up with a telephone call after she sent a text to her. She stated this was necessary to check Ms X could read it. This was not an RA that had been agreed. The Council told us that it had recently reviewed Ms X’s RAs with her and documented them. The content of the document aligns with the RAs the Council told us it had documented on its records throughout 2024.

Carrying out an assessment of needs

30. The Care Act requires councils to assess someone’s needs if it appears they may need care and support. However, an adult with possible care and support needs may choose to refuse an assessment. If they do, councils do not have to carry out an assessment.
31. It is clear that the Council has written to Ms X offering a reassessment on several occasions. On some of those occasions Ms X appears not to have responded or not engaged with the social worker.
32. When the Council offered an assessment it also agreed to use a specialist in neurodiversity, showing it sought to understand her needs properly.
33. However, I also found evidence of delays in social workers and managers contacting Ms X and delays following up complaints she made. There are examples of this leading up and after the Council responded to her complaint in August 2024. There was also a delay responding to her chasing for contact during September and October 2024.
34. After some delay, in late October, Ms X’s social worker wrote to her to explain that it was usual practice for councils to recall excessive unspent Direct Payment funds. The social worker also explained the council had access to a specialist in neurodiversity who could help review Ms X’s needs. It asked if she was in agreement to a re-assessment.
35. The Council responded to a complaint from Ms X in November. In its response the Council explained that recalling unspent DP funds was in accordance with the DP agreement. It explained that DPs could be used to fund the support set out in Ms X’s support plan – to employ a PA. It noted that her social worker had obtained specialist support to help with a re-assessment and it asked Ms X to confirm she was happy for this to proceed.
36. Ms X’s social worker ended her involvement with Ms X in January because she had not responded to the contacts about the new assessment.
37. A new social worker was allocated to work with Ms X in or around March 2025. The Council responded to further contacts from Ms X between March and June 2025 when it responded to a further complaint. However, there was no progress or agreement to carry out a new assessment.
38. Overall, I found the Council had offered an assessment to Ms X on several occasions. However, as I say above, the Council’s contacts did not always meet Ms X’s RAs and there was drift between contacts and delay in responding to Ms X when she made contact. It seems to me that Ms X not engaging with social workers and the issues with the Council’s communication, combined to result in no assessment being carried out.
39. Separate from the communication issues, I note Ms X considered that the Council was at fault because it has not properly identified and considered her mental health conditions. The Council’s ASC function does not diagnose someone’s health conditions; it is there to help meet people’s care needs. The NHS is responsible for diagnosing health conditions. So, it was appropriate that the Council suggested Ms X spoke to her GP to discuss her diagnoses and to pursue further understanding of issues that may be affecting her mental health.

Direct Payments (DPs)

40. Ms X’s support plan states that she is entitled to DPs to fund a self-employed Personal Assistant (PA) for communication and social support. This is funded for six hours per week.
41. The Council’s Direct Payment Agreement sets out the terms for receiving direct payments. Amongst other things it states:

• Direct Payments can only be used to pay for support and services to meet the agreed outcomes in someone’s support plan.
• If requested by the Council, the person receiving the direct payments agrees to repay any direct payments that have not been used in accordance with the agreement / their support plan.

Was there fault by the Council

42. Response to Ms X’s complaints: I found no fault in the Council’s decision to regard Ms X’s contact in June as a request for service rather than a complaint. Although there was a delay in its response, it spoke to Ms X in August in response to her contact and clarified that a social worker had been trying to contact her. There is evidence that the Council did respond to her complaint of November 2024.
43. Adherence to Ms X’s agreed RAs: We found there was some fault by the Council in this regard. There appears to be evidence that the Council did not consistently communicate with Ms X during 2024 in accordance with the RAs it agreed with her.
44. We noted that this had improved and the Council was actively meeting her RAs in 2025. We also note it had reviewed and confirmed what Ms X needed in respect of RAs in September 2025, which was also positive action. The failure to meet the RAs is likely to have contributed to the difficulties in agreeing a way forward with a fresh assessment of needs.
45. Assessment of Ms X’s Needs: We found the Council had offered to carry out a fresh assessment of Ms X’s needs. But as we say above, issues with adherence with her RAs, and delays in contacting Ms X at times are likely to have contributed to this not taking place. However, we also found Ms X did not engage with social workers at various points, which also affected progress towards getting an assessment done. We have recommended the Council offers a further opportunity for Ms X to obtain a reassessment of her needs.
46. Direct Payments: The Council was not at fault for seeking to recall unused DP funds that had accrued in Ms X’s DP account. It was not at fault for querying what the DPs were used for. DPs are provided to meet specified care needs and the DP agreement signed by all service users requires the funds to be used for this purpose, and allows for excess funds to be reclaimed. There was no fault by the Council in regard to its actions regarding DPs.

Back to top

Action

47. Within four weeks of my final decision:
48. The Council should send a written apology to Ms X for the lack of adherence to reasonable adjustments that we identified during 2024 and the delays in communications with Ms X. The letter should adhere to Ms X’s reasonable adjustments. The apology should adhere to our guidance on making effective apologies. This can be found on our website, within our Guidance on Remedy here.
49. The Council should write and offer Ms X a fresh needs assessment, and offer to include the specialist in neurodiversity. Its contacts about this should adhere to Ms X’s agreed reasonable adjustments.
50. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

51. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman