Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about a delay in carrying out a Care Act assessment. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the frustration caused, which is appropriate so we will not investigate further.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in carry out a Care Act assessment. He said the assessment, when completed, was inadequate, which led to an inadequate care and support plan being put in place.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
3. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

6. Mr X lives alone and has a care package. His care package, from November 2023, was for direct payments, which were used to employ a relative as personal assistant to assist him with his care needs. Those needs include support with personal hygiene, nutrition, maintaining a habitable home and accessing the community.
7. In September 2024 Mr X’s G.P asked the Council to review or re-assess his care needs because he had moved to a new property and needed support to reduce social isolation. Council records show it tried to contact Mr X the following day, but Mr X did not pick up.
8. In mid-January a social worker, officer A, was allocated to carry out a needs assessment and they tried to contact Mr X by telephone. In early February, Mr X’s solicitor told the Council Mr X wanted to communicate by email. Officer A tried calling again in late February, following up with an email.
9. The Council offered a meeting to complete the assessment on 3 March, but Mr X asked officer A to send an assessment form by email. Officer A tried calling Mr X to discuss this and then sent an email, which Mr X did not respond to.
10. In late April, officer A again offered a meeting to carry out the assessment and the next day sent an assessment form to Mr X. Mr X said he could not access it and asked for it to be resent in a specific format, which officer A did the following day. Ten days later, Mr X said he was still not able to access the form. Officer A sent the form in a format Mr X could access on 2 June 2025.
11. Officer A was then off sick and a new social worker, officer B, was allocated on 30 June 2025. Council records show that officer B was in regular contact with Mr X from mid-July 2025. Mr X declined the offer of an advocate and said he wanted the assessment to be carried out by email. Council records show Mr X has not always answered the questions officer B asked him. Further, issues have arisen about the use of direct payments and about a proposed holiday. There is no indication that Mr X’s care and support plan will change significantly when the review is complete, but officer B will try to give him clearer guidance on what he can and can not use his direct payments for.

My assessment

12. If we investigated further, it is likely we would find the Council at fault for a delay in allocating a social worker to carry out the needs assessment and for some further delay in providing an assessment form in an accessible format for Mr X. It is also likely we would find the Council at fault for not having due regard to its Equality Act 2010 duties and making reasonable adjustments to the way it communicated with him. These failings caused Mr X some frustration but, on balance, have not resulted in a failure to meet his assessed care needs.
13. We invited the Council to take steps to remedy the injustice caused and it has agreed to take the following action within one month of the date of this decision:
• apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice; and
• pay him £250 as a symbolic payment.
14. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of the case after officer B was allocated in June 2025 to justify investigating the period June to mid-August 2025 further.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about a delay in carrying out a Care Act assessment. The Council has agreed to take appropriate action to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman