Summary: We upheld a complaint made on Ms D and Miss E’s behalf, which concerned a failure by the Council to meet Miss E’s need for care and support. We found the Council delayed for ten months before beginning an assessment of Miss E’s needs. Further fault then contributed to a delay in completing that assessment and it not completing a care and support plan or putting services in place. This caused injustice to Miss E, mainly as a loss of service. While Ms D had to meet Miss E’s needs without enough support causing her distress, added to by delay and poor communications. The Council has accepted these findings. At the end of this statement, we set out the action it has agreed to take to remedy the complainants’ injustice and avoid a repeat of its fault.

The complaint

1. Ms D complained on her own behalf, and that of her daughter Miss E, who is an adult with learning disabilities. Ms D complained in April 2025 that the Council had not provided Miss E with care and support since around November 2022, when Miss E stopped attending a day centre. Ms X represented Ms D and supported her to make her complaint.
2. Ms X said that from summer 2023 onward Ms D had contact with multiple social workers in response to referrals from organisations concerned with Ms D and Miss E’s safety and wellbeing. This included concerns raised by Ms X. Ms X said the Council’s contacts left Ms D confused, not understanding the different decisions taken by the Council or roles of social workers involved. She said Ms D also received promises the Council would arrange care for Miss E which it did not keep.
3. Ms X said the Council’s actions led Ms D to experience prolonged and unnecessary distress, which compounded the stress she experienced meeting Miss E’s needs without support. Ms X said that during events covered by this complaint, Ms D’s caring role had become unsustainable, and she needed urgent relief.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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 did and did not investigate

8. I investigated events between July 2023 and May 2025.
9. Ms X first contacted us on Ms D’s behalf in April 2025. That meant I had to consider whether any complaint about events before April 2024 was late. (see paragraph 6).
10. I decided Ms D’s complaint was not late. I found from July 2023 Ms D had multiple contacts with the Council, during which it decided to undertake a reassessment of Miss E’s needs. That reassessment did not complete until January 2025 and following its completion, the Council did not put services in place for Miss E to meet her needs.
11. I considered the point at which Ms D decided she had allowed the Council enough time to complete its assessment, was a matter for her choice. Individuals will show differing degrees of patience or tolerance when waiting for organisations to complete actions. I would not restrict my investigation because Ms D allowed the Council many months to complete its assessment before deciding to complain.
12. That did not mean the Council was necessarily at fault for the delay. But that I should investigate its cause and decide if fault contributed to it.
13. The cut off for my investigation was the end of May 2025, as at the beginning of June 2025 we began our assessment of Ms D’s complaint. We cannot investigate events that arise after we begin our investigation. Although if we recommend action to remedy a complaint, we may take account of the complainant’s current circumstances. So, for example, where we find the Council at fault for not delivering a service, we may recommend it now does so, even if months have passed since the time period we have investigated.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

14. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. I also spoke to Ms D about her complaint.
15. I gave Ms X and the Council a draft version of this decision statement and invited their comments. I considered any comments they made before putting this decision statement in its final format.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legal and administrative considerations

16. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult who appears to need care and support. The assessment must cover 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.
17. The law places no set timescale on how long councils have to complete an assessment. The must do so 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.
18. Following an assessment, if the Council is to meet someone’s care needs, it must have found the following:

• first, that their needs arise from, or relate to, a physical or mental impairment or illness;
• second, that because of their needs, they cannot achieve outcomes in two or more of the following domains:
1. managing and maintaining nutrition;
2. maintaining personal hygiene;
3. managing toilet needs;
4. keeping themselves appropriately clothed;
5. being able to make use of their home safely;
6. keeping a habitable home environment;
7. developing and maintaining family or other personal relationships;
8. accessing and engaging in work, training, education or volunteering;
9. making use of necessary facilities or services in the local community including public transport, and recreational facilities or services; and
10. carrying out any caring responsibilities they have for a child;
• third, because they cannot achieve these outcomes, there will likely be a significant impact on their well-being.

19. Where the Council finds the eligibility criteria above met, then the Care Act 2014 also requires it to provide a care and support plan. This 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. 

20. 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. Before finalising the personal budget, the council should share an indicative amount with the person, and anybody else involved, as part of its care and support planning. The detail of how the person will use their personal budget will be in the care and support plan. The personal budget must always be enough to meet the person’s care and support needs.
21. 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.
22. Where an adult with care needs has a carer the council must consider if they too appear to need support. If so, the council must carry out a carer’s assessment. A carer’s assessment should find out the carer’s needs for support and consider the sustainability of the caring role itself. So, as part of a carer’s assessment, the council must also consider if the carer is, and will continue to be, able and willing to care for the adult needing care. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014)
23. The Care Act 2014 says the council may meet the carer’s needs by providing a service directly to the adult needing care. The carer must still receive a support plan which covers their needs, and how the council will meet them. So, a council must consider what the carer wishes to achieve in their day-to-day life. It may also agree they should have a personal budget to meet their needs. In which case the plan should set out how the carer will use the personal budget to meet their needs. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014)
24. A council must make enquiries if it thinks a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has care and support needs which mean the person cannot protect themselves. An enquiry is the action taken by a council in response to a concern about abuse or neglect. An enquiry could range from a conversation with the person who is the subject of the concern, to a more formal multi-agency arrangement. A council must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse. (section 42, Care Act 2014)

The key facts

25. Between May and September 2022, the Council completed an assessment of Miss E’s care needs. It produced a care and support plan which identified she had needs in several areas. These included to manage her nutrition and hydration, personal hygiene, dressing, continence care and maintaining her home. It said Ms D, as Miss E’s carer, would support her to meet those needs. The plan also identified Miss E needed support to access the community. The plan said the Council would help Miss E meet that need by arranging for her to attend a day centre, four times a week, for three hours per session.
26. By July 2023 the Council had learnt Miss E no longer attended the day centre. It kept a case note saying her attendance stopped the previous November. It learnt this information while undertaking enquiries under its duty to safeguard vulnerable adults. It had received a referral related to another matter, where it received concerns Ms D and Miss E may not be safe in their own home, because of the actions of a third party. A social worker (SW1) managed the case and spoke to Ms D during her enquiries. That same month the Council also had contact via an NHS service saying Miss E needed a social care needs assessment.
27. In October 2023, while its safeguarding enquiries continued, the Council referred Miss E’s case to a social work team to complete a fresh assessment of her social care needs.
28. In December 2023, the Council closed its safeguarding enquiries. It told us it did this as it understood Ms D and Miss E’s landlord had taken steps to make their home safe. It did not tell Ms D or Miss E of this decision.
29. Ms X said that between June 2023 and January 2024 her organisation contacted the Council multiple times because of concerns for Ms D and Miss E’s wellbeing. She said Ms D’s GP also contacted the Council in this time asking the Council to assess their needs.
30. In May 2024 the Council assigned Miss E’s case to a social worker (SW2) from one of its local teams to complete the outstanding assessment. She referred Miss E’s case to the Council’s ‘floating support’ team. On its website the Council says this service provides free, short-term “help and support to adults in Sandwell who are finding it difficult to stay safe and healthy.” It offers support “designed to help people develop the skills they need to run a home, stay safe, be healthy, and keep a job”. It lists the client groups it supports as including those with learning disabilities.
31. Ms D met with one of its representatives but declined the service offered. It recorded her reason was that what she needed, was “mental health support and help for her daughter, not the type of support offered by floating support”.
32. Next, in June 2024, Ms D and Miss E met with SW2 and a representative from a day centre. They proposed offering Miss E a half-day session each week at the day centre. The Council recorded Ms D saying this support would not be enough to meet Miss E’s needs, saying she needed support five days a week. It noted Ms D did not decline support but wanted to know about alternatives. The note described Ms D’s presentation during the meeting. It said she raised her voice and expressed distress, saying she “needs a break” from caring for Miss E. SW2 said she would discuss the case with her manager and then get back in touch to Ms D.
33. In July 2024 Ms X made a complaint. She said she had repeatedly raised concerns with the Council over the previous 12 months about Miss E not having care and support. She said Ms D did not understand the different involvements of SW1 and SW2. Ms X explained Ms D had made threats to abandon Miss E because she could not cope with supporting her needs unaided.
34. In August 2024 SW2 set up a meeting between Ms D, Miss E and a care provider (CP1). Ms D and Miss E did not attend. It later offered to re-arrange the meeting, but Ms D declined.
35. Later that month Ms D asked if the Council would assess her need for care and support. She met with another social worker, SW3, who decided Ms D did not meet the threshold for a care act assessment. This was because she did not have care needs she could not meet herself. Instead, SW3 identified Ms D needed support as a carer for Miss E and so the Council should complete a carer’s assessment for her. SW3 recorded in her meeting notes challenges caused by Ms D’s presentation, saying Ms D raised issues the Council could not help with, such as home security. After their meeting, SW3 wrote to Ms D saying the Council would complete a carer’s assessment with her.
36. In September 2024, SW2 tried to set up a meeting with another Care Provider, CP2. Ms D and Ms E did not attend. SW2 then wrote to them in early October saying she had also tried to call and text Ms D. SW2 said she continued to try and complete an assessment of Miss E’s needs and would arrange for her to have an advocate. She offered dates later that month where Ms D and Miss E could meet representatives from CP2 and she would complete a carer’s assessment for Ms D. Ms X explained to me that Ms D would not answer her phone if she did not recognise a number, because of concerns for her safety. She did not knowingly ignore any communications in writing sent by social workers.
37. In mid-October 2024 a meeting followed attended by Ms D, Miss E, SW2 and representatives from CP2. The Council’s notes described a fraught meeting with Ms D unhappy at the lack of support to date and not wanting to restate what help she needed. She raised concerns about her safety, referred to police conduct and money matters. The Council recorded that during the meeting Miss E tried repeatedly to leave. Ms D explained the support she needed meeting Miss E’s needs. CP2 said it would need to complete a risk assessment before it could agree to support Miss E.
38. Following this meeting and the disagreements between Ms D and SW2, the Council reassigned Miss E’s case to another social worker, SW4. There was also some contact between CP2 and Ms D and Miss E. At some point, CP2 introduced a support worker to Miss E and that went well, with Miss E wanting the support to continue.
39. In November 2024, the Council replied to Ms X’s complaint. It defended its decision not to complete an assessment of Ms D’s social care needs, saying that currently it considered only Miss E needed care and support. It recognised it had delayed in beginning its assessment of her needs in May 2024. But since then, SW2 had met repeatedly with Ms D who had been “aggressive and disrespectful” to her. It recognised that Ms D might benefit from advocacy.
40. Towards the end of November 2024 SW4 met with Ms D and Miss E. SW4 told Ms D and Miss E the support worker who had met Miss E had now left her employment with CP2. As a result, she said the care provider could no longer meet Miss E’s needs. SW4 said this caused Ms D “significant distress”. SW4 recorded that both Ms D and Miss E began to describe the Council as ‘liars’ and became insulting. But she also recorded Ms D asked SW4 to see if CP2 would reconsider as she did not want further disruption for Miss E.
41. Next, in December 2024, the Council wrote to Miss E and said that it continued to work on a care needs assessment. But it had agreed that from mid-January 2025, for six weeks, it would commission support from CP2. This would be for five days a week, for five hours a day, with CP2 providing support “focused on community access and activities”.
42. Later in December 2024 the Council wrote again to Miss E. It now said it could not guarantee that CP2 would begin providing support in January. This was because its staff needed specialised training.
43. In January 2025 the Council completed its needs assessment of Miss E. This found that Miss E needed support in the same areas as set out in the September 2022 care and support plan. It noted the impact on Ms D of meeting Miss E’s care needs. More discussion followed which included Miss E’s advocate. After which, the Council agreed to increase its proposed care package to eight hours a day, five days a week with two support workers present per session.
44. Miss E’s advocate then wrote to her to say she could no longer support her, as the Council considered the assessment process complete. The Council did not complete a care and support plan.
45. In February 2025, CP2 wrote to Ms D saying its package of support was “on hold”. It said it could not complete its own assessment of Miss E’s needs and had concerns about potential risks to support workers. Then in March 2025, it wrote to Ms D to say it could not provide care and support to Miss E because it could not complete its own assessment of her needs.
46. In between, the Council had reconsidered its position on undertaking a needs assessment to assess Ms D’s need for care and support. Around December 2024 it had decided it would offer this, so Ms D could also have access to an advocate. However, Ms D did not respond to letters it wrote in January or February about this assessment. The advocacy service also reported to the Council that it had received no reply to attempted contact with Ms D. So, in March 2025 it closed that referral.
47. And later that month, the Council gave a final reply to Ms X’s complaint. It defended the efforts it had made to arrange care and support for Miss E from May 2024 onward. Ms X then escalated her complaint to this office. After which time Miss E remained without any care and support in place.

My findings

48. I noted first that when the Council arranges to meet the care and support needs of a vulnerable adult it should review the support it provides at least once a year. Given the Council issued a care and support plan to Miss E in September 2022, it followed that it should have reviewed that by September 2023.
49. However, the need for it to review the care and support plan here was more urgent. First, this was because the Council knew from July 2023, that Miss E was not getting the support set out in the September 2022 plan. Second, because it also knew something of her vulnerability, and that of Ms D, because of the safeguarding enquiries it began in July 2023. This coincided with a referral from a NHS service also saying Miss E needed a care needs assessment.
50. I found the Council at fault therefore for not beginning a review of Miss E’s need for care and support by August 2023 at the latest. I selected this date as it was within one month of Miss E’s changed circumstances becoming known to the Council.
51. The delay in beginning that review then continued for another ten months. I am satisfied from Ms X’s submissions the Council received multiple contacts on Ms D and Miss E’s behalf stressing the urgency of their needs. But during this time the evidence suggested the Council’s communications with Ms D and Miss E to explain its actions and intentions were poor, bordering on the non-existent. It did not explain that its safeguarding team had referred Miss E’s case for a reassessment of her care needs. It did not explain what that reassessment might involve, nor which social work team would undertake it. It did not set out the differing roles of SW1 and SW2. This poor communication also justified a finding of fault.
52. I considered the prolonged delay, combined with this poor communication, went on to have a marked impact on what followed in this case. By May 2024 Ms D had waited far too long for any meaningful contact from the Council to explain how it might support her in meeting Miss E’s needs. She had confusion over the differing roles of different social work teams and social workers. So, at the point the Council assigned Miss E’s case to SW2, Ms D’s confidence in its service was understandably low. And I accept Ms X’s account that Ms D felt close to breaking point because neither she nor Miss E had any outside support.
53. I then found the Council did not follow a clear process to identify and meet Miss E’s care needs. I found the law clear about the process it should have followed. First, it needed to assess Miss E’s needs, as the person needing care and support and Ms D’s need for support as Miss E’s carer. Second, it then needed to produce a care and support plan explaining how it would meet their needs. Third, it needed to identify the services that would deliver the care and support outlined in the care and support plan. Government guidance makes clear that throughout these steps the Council needed to involve Miss E throughout, as well as Miss E as her carer.
54. But the Council did not follow a clear process here. It did not complete Miss E’s care needs assessment until January 2025, seven months after it assigned the case to SW2. It never drew up a care and support plan. It never agreed a personal budget. In between, it had discussions with Ms D, Miss E, a day centre and care providers about possible support for Miss E. But because it did not follow a clear process, there was no care needs assessment or care and support plan to inform those discussions. So, there was no clarity about the extent of support the Council believed Miss E needed.
55. I considered some of this confusion arose because of steps taken in good faith by the Council to try and put some service in place for Miss E. Faced with someone who has urgent care needs, it is always more important the Council put some care and support in place than become bogged down in completing assessment paperwork. So, we will not find fault with a council that tries to set up some temporary short-term care at the outset of the assessment process, where it finds such need.
56. In this case I therefore made no criticism of the Council referring Ms D and Miss E to its ‘floating support’ service. I accepted this might not have provided a good fit for Miss E’s needs. But I did not consider the referral inappropriate as that service may still have offered some short-term support.
57. But after Ms D rejected that, I could not see good reason for the Council not completing its assessment. Nor why it took SW3’s involvement in August 2024 to identify Ms D’s need for a carer’s assessment. Nor why it took several months for it to identify Miss E’s need for advocacy. I also did not find evidence the Council explained clearly and concisely to Ms D the steps it needed to follow to assess and put in place care and support for Miss E. Had it done so, and accompanied that with an honest recognition of its failings pre-May 2024, then it might not have faced difficulties engaging with Ms D.
58. I considered another event which contributed to that, was when the Council offered half a day respite for Miss E, in June 2024. Given what it knew of Miss E’s needs from past assessments, and what it must have known from its contacts with Ms D up to then, I considered this proposal wholly inadequate. It could scarcely have come as a surprise the proposal triggered such distress in Ms D. It is then worrying to read SW2’s case note, where she said to Ms D she did not know what to do next. I thought by June 2024, the Council had lost its way in undertaking its overdue assessment of Miss E’s needs. That too contributed to the breakdown in relations between it and Ms D.
59. That said, I could not ignore that some of Ms D’s presentation from July 2024 onward also hampered efforts to put care and support in place for Miss E. The meeting notes kept by officers make clear she spoke to them sometimes in derogatory terms. They also consistently noted that Ms D would talk about matters which had little relevance to Miss E’s care needs. In addition, there were references to Ms D not responding to post or telephone contact. That included not co-operating with the Council’s offer to undertake a needs assessment of her needs with an advocate.
60. I accepted that some of Ms D’s presentation arose from her genuine distress in feeling unsupported in caring for Miss E. To which the series of faults by the Council, outline above, had contributed. I also understood why Ms D would not answer calls from unknown numbers, although the evidence suggested the Council did also put some matters in writing. But I considered that however unintentionally, some of Ms D’s presentation had contributed to delay after July 2024 in completing Miss E’s care needs assessment and putting care and support in place for her.
61. But there were also other faults by the Council between July 2024 and April 2025 which contributed to this delay. I reiterate that it took several months to put advocacy in place for Miss E and four months to identify Ms D’s need for a carer’s assessment. To put the blame on Ms D for the delay in the assessment completing, as it implied in its complaint response of November 2024 was wrong.
62. The Council then further undermined its relations with Ms D through what happened in December 2024, when it commissioned a short-term package of care from CP2, only to withdraw it soon afterwards. It raised her expectations of support only to then dash them. It offered no apology in its letter of December 2024 when it communicated this.
63. I also found some of CP2’s actions did not help relations between Ms D and the Council. I found it worrying the care provider tried to withdraw support offered to Miss E on the basis a support worker left its employment. There is no reason such an unavoidable event should have led to this, as services from a care provider should not hinge on a single person’s availability. That they clearly felt under no obligation here, again says something about the lack of care planning by the Council in meeting Miss E’s needs. Because even though the Council told Ms D that CP2 would begin meeting Ms E’s care needs, it never entered any contractual arrangement with that provider.
64. CP2 was also not clear with the Council about its processes. In particular, the need for staff training and undertaking its own care and risk assessments. But again, the Council had to take some accountability here. It could not have helped the care provider that it had no care and support plan to work to. Nor that the Council kept shifting its position on the extent of Miss E’s need for care and support.
65. In summary therefore I found the Council at fault for:

• delay in reviewing Miss E’s care and support needs after August 2023;
• poor communications around its review of her needs;
• not following a clear process in undertaking that review;
• making an unacceptable offer of short-term support through a day centre;
• failing to acknowledge any of the above as it went on to try and complete its assessment;
• delay in instructing an advocate to support Miss E;
• delay in offering Ms D a carer’s assessment;
• making offers of short-term support via CP2 which it then had to withdraw or otherwise did not happen.

66. Next I considered the impact of these faults on Ms D and Miss E. I found Ms D suffered repeated and avoidable distress which compounded that caused by meeting Miss E’s needs without support.
67. I also found Miss E had suffered a loss of service. Had the Council undertaken a review when it should and communicated clearly how it would do that, I considered it likely Ms D would have had more faith in the Council. So, the Council would have secured her greater co-operation. In which case, I considered on balance, it would have completed care and support planning and put services in place for Miss E.

Agreed Action

68. The Council accepted the findings set out above. It agreed to proposals to remedy the injustice caused by its faults to Ms D and Miss E. It agreed that within 20 working days of this decision it would:
1. apologise to Ms D and Miss E accepting the findings of this investigation. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council agreed to consider this guidance in making the apology recommended;
2. make a symbolic payment to Ms D £2335 and to Miss E of £585. I explain how I calculated these payments below;
3. appoint a senior officer, not previously involved in oversight of the case to liaise with Ms D in commissioning an independent social worker (ISW) and instruct the ISW to:
1. undertake a quick review of Miss E’s care needs assessment completed in January 2025 to ensure it remained up to date;
2. complete a carer’s assessment of Ms D’s needs;
3. work with Ms D and Miss E in drawing up a joint care and support plan;
4. retain oversight of the case while the Council commissioned any services identified in the care and support plan;
5. aim to complete steps 1 to 4 within three months of their instruction;
6. undertake a review six to eight weeks after services went into place to ensure they were meeting any assessed needs of Ms D and Miss E and that the care and support plan remained appropriate;
4. ensure Miss E had access to advocacy services and the ISW would involve the advocate when undertaking the steps set out at points c1, c3, c4 and c6 above.
69. I calculated the symbolic payment set out in paragraph 68b) as follows. In total there were 21 months between August 2023 and May 2025 when Miss E did not have care and support. I considered a payment of £200 a month for the combined loss of service and distress fair. However, I considered the Council could reasonably have taken three months to complete an assessment, draw up a care and support plan and identify a provider. So, that left 18 months where Miss E did not have care and support and this resulted in whole or in part, from the Council’s fault. That provided a starting figure of £3600 (18 months at £200 a month). I then reduced the payment to cover the period August 2024 to May 2025 by one-third (10 months = £680) in consideration of the factors set out in paragraphs 59 and 60. This left £2920. Finally, I considered how to divide this given both Miss E and Ms D experienced injustice. As I considered Ms D experienced most distress in this case, and the impact of the loss of service fell more on her also, I decided a ratio of 80:20 to her, was fair.
70. As well as the personal remedy recommended above, I also wanted the Council to learn lessons from this complaint. It agreed that it would undertake an internal review, to complete within three months of this decision, to cover the following:
1. the procedures used to prioritise cases where no care is in place, while someone waits for a needs assessment. The review would ask if the Council has the appropriate triage arrangements in place and resources to avoid delay in it beginning an assessment of need, such as happened in this case. If not, it would ask what steps the Council could take to improve its triage arrangements or reduce delays;
2. the communications it has with those who are waiting for a social care needs assessment. The review would consider what procedure it has in place to let people know when it has decided to complete a needs assessment and when it anticipates completing that. And what it tells them about the priority it gives their case and how it has decided this. Also, what arrangements it has to keep in touch with them if they are waiting more than four weeks for the assessment to begin? The Council agreed the review would consider if it needed to produce or update advice for staff, and how it ensured they were aware of that advice. Also, what checks it has in place to ensure such communication happens;
3. the communications it has with people once it begins the process of assessing social care needs. The review would ask if it made clear the different steps involved between assessment and services starting. And if it routinely shared needs assessments, indicative personal budgets and care and support plans. It would ask if there was more it needed to do to improve its procedures and staff awareness of the same;
4. what advice or procedures it has in place to support social workers when they are looking to set up urgent packages of care before completing a needs assessment and care and support planning. How could it avoid situations like Ms D and Miss E’s experience where repeated negotiations around care packages took place, but without a care needs assessment or care and support plan completing.
71. The Council agreed to provide us with evidence when it had complied with all recommended actions in paragraphs 68 and 70. So, it would write to us with the outcome of the review setting out any changes made to its procedures or practice as a result, or that it proposed to make. It would also let us know of any measures it had taken, or proposed to take, to improve its staff awareness of any relevant procedures or guidance.

Back to top

Final Decision

72. For reasons set out above I upheld this complaint finding fault by the Council caused injustice to Ms D and Miss E. The Council accepted this finding and agreed to take action that I considered would remedy that injustice. So, I completed my investigation satisfied with its response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman