Summary: Mr F complained the Council failed to properly assess his care and support needs under the Care Act 2014. We found no fault.

The complaint

1. Mr F complained the Council failed to properly assess his care and support needs under the Care Act 2014. In particular he complained:
• There was confusion over whether the February 2025 assessment was carried out under the Care Act 2014 or section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
• The assessment was inaccurate and did not consider all the evidence.
• The social worker’s proposed care and support plan wrongly focused on enablement rather than practical support and as a result there was disability discrimination.
2. Mr F says as a result his care and support needs are not being met, causing him distress and anxiety and time and trouble in complaining.
3. Mr F wants the Council to carry out a new assessment, correct mistakes in his records and provide proper support. Mr F also wants the Council to apologise and a financial remedy.

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. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr F and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr F and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Care and support

8. The Care Act 2014 requires local authorities to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. The assessment determines what the person's needs are and whether the person has any needs which are eligible for support from the council.
9. Where councils have determined that a person has any eligible needs, they must meet those needs. The person's needs and how they will be met must be set out in a care and support plan. A care and support plan must be reviewed at least annually.
10. Where a council arranges care and support to meet a person’s needs, it may charge the adult for the cost of the care.

Section 117 After-Care

11. Under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 councils and the NHS have a joint duty to provide or arrange free mental health after-care services for people who have been detained in hospital for treatment under certain sections of the 1983 Act.
12. After-care services must meet a need arising from or related to the person’s mental health disorder and reduce the risk of their mental health condition worsening and the need for another hospital admission again for the mental health disorder.
13. Before or at the point of discharge from hospital, a section 117 after-care assessment should be completed using the Care Programme Approach (CPA). Under the CPA, the person must have a comprehensive care plan and a named care coordinator who is responsible for ensuring the care plan is prepared, implemented and reviewed. The after-care plan should be regularly reviewed.
14. The after-care assessment should identify which needs are related to the person’s mental health condition and should therefore be met (for free) under section 117 to prevent relapse and readmission to hospital. The after-care assessment must also identify whether the person has needs which should be met as part of any additional care package, such as care and support under the Care Act 2014. If so, an assessment to determine eligibility for care and support under the Care Act 2014 will need to be undertaken.
15. A person may therefore have both a section 117 after-care plan and a Care Act 2014 care and support plan if they have needs that go beyond what can be provided under section 117.

The Council’s procedures

16. The Council has a legal agreement with the local NHS mental health trust to provide integrated mental health services. This means all the Council’s mental health social care staff are seconded to the NHS Trust and use its electronic patient recording system as well as the Council’s.
17. Someone whose needs are being met under section 117, will have a section 117 CPA after-care plan completed by a social worker, community psychiatric nurse (CPN) or an occupational therapist. Section 117 after-care plans are reviewed jointly by council and NHS mental health staff.
18. But in Warwickshire there is no specific section 117 after-care plan or assessment form, so the Council’s Care Act 2014 documentation is used if the person’s needs are to be met by a social care funded package of care. This means that any section 117 after-care review will require the Care Act review paperwork to be completed. In response to my enquiries, the Council acknowledged this could be confusing and said the ‘social care after-care assessment’ was frequently and erroneously referred to as the ‘Care Act assessment’.

Equality Act 2010

19. The Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed. These include disability.
20. 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.
21. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.

What happened

22. Mr F has a mental health condition and autism. After being in hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983, he had a section 117 after-care plan. This set out the services he needed to prevent deterioration of his mental health, such as psychiatric outpatient appointments, regular visits from his CPN to provide emotional and practical support, and regular visits from a recovery worker to access the community, assist with shopping etc.
23. In February 2025, there was a joint review of his after-care plan. A social worker and a CPN conducted the review virtually over two sessions as requested by Mr F. The review found that Mr F needed support due to lethargy and low motivation caused by his mental health medication, sleep problems and memory loss.
24. As the Council and NHS do not have a separate “section 117 review form” each professional completed the review using their own paperwork (a mental health care plan and a care and support assessment).
25. The CPN’s review said Mr F was learning a language, was registered with the Council’s housing register and was looking to move. Mr F wanted help with cleaning and laundry, rather than help with routines, productivity, and planning. It does not identify any services that were to be provided under section 117.
26. The social worker’s review said Mr F was bilingual, had been bidding on properties and “was moving” home. Mr F wanted help with cleaning and laundry as he was unable to maintain a habitable home environment. It says Mr F was eligible for care and support under the Care Act 2014.
27. Both reviews recommended Mr F was referred to the enablement service, which supports people for six weeks to regain the skills and confidence they need to live independently. The aim was to support Mr F with managing time and gaining skills in clearing his home and doing laundry. The review therefore did not recommended a funded care package.
28. Mr F sent the CPN a 2016 clinical psychologist’s assessment of his cognitive abilities which also noted his autistic traits.
29. A referral was made to the enablement service which assessed Mr F virtually. Mr F said he did not want a home visit. The enablement service recommended working virtually with Mr F, support to access leisure activities in the community and an OT assessment. But eventually it discharged Mr F as it could not help him without visiting him at home.

Mr F’s complaint

30. Mr F complained to the Council on 31 March that he had not been properly assessed under the Care Act 2014. As a result, his care and support needs had not been met. Mr F said the assessment had not considered his autism or cognitive impairments and had not made any adjustments under the Equality Act. The outcome of referring him to the enablement service did not provide the practical support he needed or support him to improve his ability to engage socially. He also complained that he had not been sent a copy of the assessment. Mr F requested a reassessment.
31. Mr F also complained that he did not have a section 117 care coordinator and the NHS had not considered providing regular psychologist appointments.
32. The Council responded on 11 April. It said the section 117 review had been done jointly. The Care Act assessment and the section 117 review had comprehensively recorded Mr F’s mental health and social care needs. The Council did not uphold the complaint about being referred to enablement; this was in line with its ethos of promoting independence, recovery and autonomy. The Council had made reasonable adjustments for Mr F’s autism and cognitive impairments by holding the review virtually and by communicating via email. It would send Mr F a copy of the assessment and apologised this had not been done. The Council could not comment on the actions of NHS staff; Mr F should discuss his need for a care coordinator with mental health staff.
33. Mr F came to the Ombudsman. Since then, there has been a re-assessment of Mr F’s section 117 after-care needs. The Council created a bespoke section 117 self-assessment form for Mr F to complete. It has proposed a direct payment with Mr F to fund a cleaner and laundry service as part of his section 117 after-care. Mr F says his needs are still not being met but this is a new complaint.

My findings

34. The February 2025 review was a joint review of Mr F’s section 117 after-care plan. The Council has recognised that the paperwork may be confusing and it is looking to address this. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it was not necessary for the social worker to complete the care and support assessment form, as she was not recommending a funded package of social care.
35. But as explained in paragraph 14, a section 117 after-care assessment must also consider if the person has needs that will be met under the Care Act 2014. This is done by assessing a person under the Care Act 2014. It was therefore not fault for the Council to complete a care and support assessment document and to consider whether Mr F had care and support needs. It decided he did and that these could be met using the enablement service.
36. Mr F complained the assessment was inaccurate. The Council has accepted there were some discrepancies between the two documents, for example one describes Mr F learning a language and the other wrongly says he is bilingual. The Council has apologised for these and it has subsequently enabled Mr F to complete a self-assessment so that he can describe his own needs. This is an appropriate and proportionate remedy for any injustice caused. I have not seen evidence that the inaccuracies Mr F refers to have resulted in his care and support needs not being met.
37. Mr F complained that the proposed care and support plan wrongly focused on enablement rather than providing him with practical support.
38. It is not the Ombudsman's role to decide what, if any, care and support a person needs. That is the Council's role. My role is to consider if the Council has followed the correct process for establishing a person's needs and if it acted correctly when this process was complete. In doing so we look at what information the Council considered, and if it took account of the service user’s wishes. If a council considers all this information properly, I cannot find it at fault just because a service user disagrees with its decision, or outcome of an assessment.
39. I have considered the care and support assessment carried out in February 2025 as part of the section 117 after-care review. The social worker met twice with Mr F, virtually as he requested. Afterwards, Mr F sent a psychologist’s assessment to the CPN. This is not referred to in the assessment, but the assessment describes Mr F’s needs and how these can be met. It was a professional judgment that Mr F’s needs could be met by the enablement service. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the assessment was carried out, I therefore cannot find fault in that decision.
40. Mr F complains the Council failed to have regard to the Equality Act 2010. The Ombudsman cannot determine if there has been disability discrimination under the Equality Act, only the courts can decide this. The Council’s approach to encouraging independence is in line with the Care and Support Statutory Guidance which says assessments should include a strengths-based approach. The Council carried out the assessment virtually and over two sessions to make allowances for Mr F’s autism and cognitive needs. I have seen no evidence the Council failed to consider Mr F’s disabilities or its duties under the Equality Act. There is no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Decision

41. There was no fault. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman