Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to update Mr S’s care plan to include provision after his day placement ended in August 2024. This meant he missed out on provision to meet his eligible care needs. This also caused his mother, Ms X, distress, as she became his fulltime carer with no respite. The Council agreed to apologise and make payments to Mr S and Ms X to acknowledge the distress caused and the lack of provision. It also agreed to report back to us on steps it will take to prevent similar issues from happening in future.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to secure her adult son, Mr S, with provision following a reassessment of his needs in summer 2024. He was due to start at a training centre for young adults in September 2024, but the Council did not approve the placement and instead suggested he attend community activities. Ms X said this led Mr S to become anxious and socially withdrawn. Ms X no longer has respite from her caring responsibilities, causing her distress.
2. Ms X said there was no continuity in the social workers, each time a new one was allocated, they completed a new assessment which caused further delay and distress. She also said the communication was poor.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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 cannot give their consent, we may investigate a complaint from a person we decide is a suitable representative. (section 26A or 34C, Local Government Act 1974)
6. 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

7. I have investigated the period 12 months prior to when Ms X brought her complaint to us. Ms X brought the complaint in April 2025 so I have investigated the period back to April 2024. Any information provided before this time is for background information and to provide context only.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. 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

Relevant legislation

Assessments, Care Plans and Reviews

10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.

Mental Capacity Act and best interest decision making

13. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is the framework for acting and deciding for people who lack the mental capacity to make particular decisions for themselves. The Act (and the Code of Practice 2007) describes the steps a person should take when dealing with someone who may lack capacity to make decisions for themselves. It describes when to assess a person’s capacity to make a decision, how to do this, and how to make a decision on behalf of somebody who cannot do so.
14. The council must assess someone’s ability to make a decision when that person’s capacity is in doubt. How it assesses capacity may vary depending on the complexity of the decision.
15. A key principle of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is that any act done for, or any decision made on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be in that person’s best interests. The decision-maker also has to consider if there is a less restrictive choice available that can achieve the same outcome. Section 4 of the Act provides a checklist of steps decision-makers must follow to determine what is in a person’s best interests.
16. If there is a conflict about what is in a person’s best interests, and all efforts to resolve the dispute have failed, the Court of Protection might need to decide what is in the person’s best interests.

What happened

17. I have summarised below the key events; this is not intended to be a detailed account.
18. Ms S is an adult with learning difficulties.
19. Mr S’s support plan dated March 2024 says he attended a day placement which was due to end in August 2024. The plan also said Mr S received support from his mother when at home. From January 2024, Ms X was anxious about Mr S’s placement ending and regularly telephoned the duty social worker to ask for a review of his care plan. Mr S did not have an assigned social worker. Ms X told the duty social worker she and Mr S visited a training centre for young adults (the training centre) which Mr S wanted to attend from September 2024. A place was available for him and the training centre said it could meet his needs.
20. The support plans dated June and July 2024 set out the support provided to Mr S. They referred to the day placement and support provided at home by Ms X. The plans noted the day placement was due to end in August 2024. The plan stated Mr S wanted to attend the training centre once his day placement ended. It did not set out what provision would be in place from August 2024.
21. The Council emailed Ms X in September 2024 and told her it would not fund the training centre for Mr S as it did not consider it was the best option to support him. The Council referred Mr S to a Communities and Prevention Service, shared community services and alternative options. It emailed Ms X a list of 14 potential providers of support which it said it would discuss with the family.
22. The Council assigned Mr S a new social worker in September 2024. They completed a review in early September 2024.
23. At the beginning of October 2024, the social worker visited Ms X and Mr S and his advocate at home. The social worker discussed the 14 potential providers of support with them. The notes from the discussion show the attendees considered the alternatives were not suitable for Mr S. Many of them were session based and did not provide the consistency or long-term support Mr S needed.
24. In October 2024, the social worker held a Best Interests Decision (BID) meeting. The report from the meeting listed the 14 potential providers and the training centre and listed the pros and cons of each. For the 14 alternative provisions, there were more cons than pros. The notes listed several pros for the training centre and all parties agreed it would be the best option for Mr S. It was a 50 week programme providing consistency and continuity at the appropriate level for Mr S with various options and skills to learn in a safe and nurturing environment with his friends.
25. The Council completed a needs assessment and emailed this to Ms X in December 2024. The assessment said Mr S had been recently struggling with his mental health due to lack of routine since leaving his day care placement. Mr S expressed he wanted to attend the training centre.
26. An Occupational Therapist (OT) completed an assessment visit in December 2024. The report said Mr S’s wellbeing had been negatively impacted as he had no daytime activities since leaving his day placement. The OT said Mr S would like to attend the training centre where he would have a meaningful occupation. The OT assessment said the training centre was an “appropriate setting” for Mr S.
27. In late February 2025, the Council emailed Ms X and said it was moving away from day centres to community-based activities. It did not agree for Mr S to attend the training centre. The Council said it would explore a personal assistant for Mr S to help him access community-based activities.
28. The Council assigned a new social worker to Mr S in March 2025.
29. The Council assigned a further new social worker to Mr S at the end of April 2025.
30. In May 2025, the Council conducted a further adult social care review. Under the heading ‘support to be provided’, it said Ms X provided support in the family home. The report said Mr S expressed a wish to attend the training centre. It said ‘His previous request to attend [the training centre] was declined, leaving him at home for the rest of the week. This lack of social interaction has led to [Mr S] feeling low, bored, and confused about his inactivity. His mum has observed changes in his behaviour such as increased skin picking until it bleeds, stimming, flapping and pacing, which she identifies as signs of stress.’ The outcome of the review said ‘No change to the support plan’.
31. The Council held a Consistent Practice Methods Meeting (CPMM) later in July 2025 which suggested Mr S attend the training centre twice a week. The CPMM did not agree.
32. In the middle of October 2025, the CPMM reviewed Mr S’s case. It agreed Mr S would attend the training centre for four days a week for one year. The Council would provide transport. It updated Mr S’s care and support plan.

The complaint

33. Ms X complained to the Council in the middle of September 2024.
34. The Council responded in December 2024. It partially upheld Ms X’s complaint. It accepted it delayed providing suitable provision for Mr S and apologised for the uncertainty and lack of clarity. The letter explained the social worker would complete a reassessment of Mr S’s needs and refer him to the reablement service. The social worker was to carry out a mental capacity assessment and if this found Mr S lacked capacity, they were to organise a best interests decision meeting.
35. Ms X was not satisfied with the Council's complaint response and complained to us in April 2025. Ms X said Mr S had been without a placement since September 2024 causing him to regress, become socially isolated and his anxiety was “through the roof”. She said the activities in the community suggested by the Council were not suitable for Mr S.
36. Ms X told us the Council kept asking Mr S what he wanted and he said he wanted to go to the training centre but the Council has not provided this. Ms X said she did not feel the Council had listened to her or Mr S. In addition, as Mr S was at home full time she had no respite from her caring role.

Analysis

37. The Council must provide a person with a care and support plan. The Council provided Mr S with care and support plans in March, June and July 2024.
38. When the Council drafted the support plans in March, June and July 2024, Mr S had a placement at the day centre, which was ending in August 2024. The result of the review in both plans was ‘no change to the support plan’. While the placement did continue until August 2024, I would expect the Council to have considered what provision it was going to put in place once the day placement ended, especially in the plan dated July 2024, a month before the provision finished. In its complaint response, the Council accepted it delayed providing suitable provision for Mr S and apologised for the uncertainty. The Council’s failure to plan and put provision in place after August 2024 is fault. This caused distress to Ms X and Mr S as they did not know what provision was going to be in place after this time.
39. The Council has a duty to meet identified eligible care and support needs. When the Council decided the training centre was not suitable for Mr S, it should have put alternative provision in place for him to ensure it met his care needs. It suggested 14 different activities in September 2024 but did not put any of these in place. It also suggested a personal assistant for Mr S but did nothing to ensure this happened. The Council did not provide any support for Mr S from September 2024. This is fault. This lack of provision had a significant impact and caused Mr S to become socially isolated, increased his anxieties and caused changes in his behaviour induced by stress. This is his injustice.
40. The Council failing to support Mr S meant Ms X became his full-time carer. She could not leave Mr S and had no time for herself. Ms X had no respite from her caring duties. This caused her emotional distress; this is her injustice.
41. There are several occasions when the Council reviewed Mr S’s care and noted Mr S’s wellbeing had been negatively impacted since he left the day placement and received no provision. The OT noted this in their report, it was also recorded in the care assessment and support plan in December 2024 and the further adult social care review in May 2025 and the CPMM in July 2025. The Council had several opportunities to consider the lack of services in place and put alternative provision in place. Its failure to do so is fault.
42. The Council allocated three social workers to Mr S between September 2024 and the present date. This did not help the continuity and communication.
43. The best interests decision (BID) meeting in October 2024 considered the 14 activities the Council suggested and the training centre and weighed the pros and cons. The notes show the 14 activities had more cons than pros and the attendees decided these were not suitable for Mr S. The training centre had several pros and no cons. The attendees decided this option was in Mr S’s best interests. Despite this, the Council did not follow the BID and refused to offer the training centre to Mr S. The Council ignored the BID, this was fault.

Summary of fault causing injustice

44. The Council was at fault for failing to provide services to meet Mr S’s eligible care and support needs after his day placement ended in August 2024. The Council considered the case several times during this period and was aware Mr S was struggling with the lack of routine. Mr S was without any formal provision for over a year which caused him to become socially isolated, increased his anxieties and caused changes in his behaviour induced by stress. The impact on him was significant. The lack of provision also impacted on Ms X and caused her distress as she became his fulltime carer and had no respite.
45. The Council put provision in place starting October 2025 which prevents any further injustice to Ms X and Mr S.

Back to top

Action

46. Within four weeks of the final decision, the Council should apologise to Ms X and Mr S and pay:
• Mr S £1,000 to acknowledge the distress and lack of provision from August 2024 to October 2025.
• Ms X £500 to acknowledge the distress caused by the lack of respite due to the Councils failure to provide services for her son from August 2024 to October 2025.
47. Within two months of the final decision, I recommend the Council reviews the complaint and identifies the issues that led to Mr S being left without any care provision. It should then report back to us on the steps it will take to avoid similar issues happening in future.
48. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman