Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed meeting his assessed care needs and finding him suitable supported accommodation. We find the Council at fault for its delay in putting the care and support outlined in Mr X’s care plan in place. The Council’s actions caused Mr X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty, and his care needs were not met for five months. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a symbolic payment of £500.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s delays in meeting his assessed care needs and moving him into supported accommodation after the social worker failed to send his Care Act assessment to the correct department. He says this caused him significant distress, frustration and uncertainty, and exacerbated his physical and mental health symptoms.

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

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr 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

Care assessment

6. 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.
7. 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.

Care Plan

8. 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.

What happened

9. In September 2024, Mr X and his advocate requested the Council carry out a Care Act assessment of his needs. They said Mr X urgently needed a care package put in place as he could not meet his daily needs without support and was at risk of falls.
10. At the beginning of December, the Council assigned a social worker (Social Worker A) to Mr X. At this time Mr X was living in supported accommodation and receiving one hour of care per week.
11. Social Worker A completed a care assessment at the beginning of December, which identified that Mr X required more support to carry out his basic daily needs.
12. Social Worker A then completed a care and support plan with Mr X’s input in mid-January 2025. The plan specified Mr X required alternative supported accommodation more suited to his needs, in addition to 19.5 hours of weekly care.
13. Mr X said he contacted the Council multiple times throughout January and February to request updates on the progress of the case. At the end of February, Social Worker A responded to Mr X and said they thought they had submitted the care assessment to their line manager for approval but had not done so.
14. Social Worker A contacted Mr X again the following day to tell him they had sent the care plan on to a senior social worker (Social Worker B) who would review the support and budget specified within the plan. Social Worker A unexpectedly left their post on the same day. Social Worker B also left their post at the end of February. The Council therefore did not review Mr X’s care and support plan.
15. Mr X complained to the Council at the beginning of March about the delay, which he said had left him without suitable care. He also contacted the Council on five more occasions in March to request an update on the progress of his case. The Council told Mr X it would assign him a new social worker.
16. The Council upheld Mr X’s complaint. It accepted the delay and acknowledged it did not submit the care assessment in line with its procedure. It said while neither Social Worker A nor B worked for the Council anymore, the oversight would serve as a learning point for the wider team. It said it would allocate Mr X a new social worker by early April. It apologised to Mr X.
17. The Council allocated a new social worker (Social Worker C) to Mr X at the end of March. They became responsible for arranging the support specified in the care and support plan. Social Worker C contacted Mr X initially at the beginning of April, and again two weeks later to tell him they had arranged a care package for him. This included 19.5 hours of weekly care and a new supported living placement, as outlined in his care plan. Social Worker C completed a financial assessment in May.
18. Mr X remained unhappy with the Council’s delay in sourcing suitable care and support so requested a review of his complaint. The Council’s review upheld its original complaint response and apologised for its delays in ensuring Mr X received the care he needed.
19. Mr X moved into his preferred supported accommodation in June 2025, where he now receives the care package specified in his care plan.

Back to top

Analysis

20. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance says that the care and support planning process ‘should be completed in a timely fashion, proportionate to the needs to be met’. The Council also has a duty to meet the care and support needs of any person that is eligible.
21. In this case, Social Worker A completed Mr X’s care assessment at the beginning of December 2024, and the care and support plan in mid-January 2025. The care and support in the plan was not in place for Mr X until June which was five months later. This was not timely or proportionate in the circumstances and so there was delay. This is fault.
22. The Council’s delay meant Mr X did not have the support he needed for five months, and it did not meet his care needs for this period. The care and support plan specified he needed 19.5 hours of weekly care, rather than the one hour of care he had been receiving up until June. This is a considerable difference, and Mr X said this impacted his physical and mental health and caused him distress. Mr X also remained in unsuitable supported accommodation for this time, which did not meet his needs. Mr X suffered frustration and uncertainty, as he was left feeling unsure about what care and support he was going to receive, and when. I have recommended a remedy to address this injustice below.
23. The Council has explained the delay in submitting the care and support plan was an oversight. It cannot follow up with the staff originally involved as they no longer work for the Council. However, it will take what happened as a learning point for the wider team. Although the situation has caused an injustice to Mr X, I am content that the Council’s delay in sourcing Mr X’s care and support was an isolated incident and not a systemic issue within the Council. Therefore, I have not recommended any service improvements.

Back to top

Action

24. Within one month of the date of my final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mr X for the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the identified fault; and
2. Pay a symbolic remedy of £500 to Mr X to recognise the distress, frustration, and uncertainty caused by the Council’s delay in meeting his assessed care needs.
25. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

26. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr X an injustice. The Council has accepted my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman