Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to ensure Ms Y had support to meet her eligible care needs between January and June 2025 and for repeatedly suggesting Mrs X consider direct payments. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms Y and Mrs X and make payments to acknowledge the frustration, lack of respite and missed provision the faults caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to find suitable support to meet her adult daughter Ms Y’s eligible care needs. This meant Ms Y has not received appropriate support, and this has placed Mr and Mrs X under additional strain as they have needed to provide additional support and have not received respite from their caring role. Mrs X says it has also restricted Ms Y’s ability to socialise more widely in line with her care and support plan.

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 Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. I gave Mrs X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of my decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The relevant law and guidance

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. 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. 
8. Everyone whose needs the council meets must receive a personal budget as part of the care and support plan. The personal budget gives the person clear information about the money allocated to meet the needs identified in the assessment and recorded in the plan. 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.
9. There are three main ways a personal budget can be administered:

• as a managed account held by the council with support provided in line with the person’s wishes;
• as a managed account held by a third party (often called an individual service fund or ISF) with support provided in line with the person’s wishes; or
• as a direct payment. Direct payments are monetary payments made to individuals who ask for them to meet some or all of their eligible care and support needs. The gateway to receiving a direct payment must always be through the request from the person. Councils must not force someone to take a direct payment against their will. They should not place someone in a situation where a direct payment is the only way they can get personalised care and support.

(Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014)

What happened

10. The following is a summary of the main events relevant to this complaint. I have considered what happened from June 2024 onwards.
11. Ms Y has mental health issues and autism which impact her daily life. She lives with Mr and Mrs X. In 2024 the Council assessed Ms Y as requiring support in being able to make use of the home safely, in maintaining a habitable home, in making use of necessary facilities in the local community and in accessing and engaging in work, training, education or volunteering. Mr and Mrs X provide significant support to Ms Y at home to ensure she is safe and to maintain the home.
12. The Council assessed Ms Y as requiring 18 hours of support to access the community and to begin to socialise with other people beside the family. The Council tendered out the contract for care and received one response from care provider A.
13. From July 2024 Ms Y received support from care provider A. In early October 2024, it handed back the care package to the Council as the care provider reported Ms Y and Mrs X were not happy with the selection of care workers offered.
14. In October 2024 the Council arranged for care provider B to support Ms Y. In November 2024 and January 2025 Mr and Mrs X reported issues with the care provider. They say a care worker had fallen asleep twice when supporting Ms Y. They requested a meeting however the care provider pulled out of the arrangement in January 2025. It told the Council Ms Y was refusing to engage with new care workers. The Council asked if Mrs X would consider direct payments. Mrs X did not agree to this as she did not want to be an employer and was concerned about how difficult it would be to find support given the difficulties in finding a council commissioned care provider.
15. The Council identified another care provider, care provider C who it said would call Mrs X the following week. Mrs X did not get a call and requested emergency support. The Council again suggested Mrs X consider direct payments. Mrs X refused and reiterated that if the Council could not find a care provider how would she find a personal assistant. Mrs X complained to the Council about care provider C’s lack of contact and about the lack of support to meet Ms Y’s needs.
16. In late January care provider C assessed Ms Y but Mrs X said they mutually agreed it could not meet her needs.
17. Mrs X contacted the Council for an update in early February. It suggested Ms Y try enablement with targeted goals to maximise her independence. Mrs X responded that Ms Y had already completed six months of reablement the previous year. The Council suggested two days attendance at a respite centre or direct payments.
18. Mrs X requested more information about the respite centre and again refused direct payments. The Council provided the details of the respite centre which was run by care provider B. Mrs X arranged to visit the respite centre. However, it cancelled the visit and later decided it could not meet Ms Y’s needs.
19. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint in late February 2025. It acknowledged company C had not called her and said that when it was made aware, the social worker contacted the care provider to follow this up. It said care provider C had later phoned Mrs X and apologised for this. It acknowledged there was no care in place but said a significant number of options had been explored and offered. It encouraged Mrs X to be open and explore all options including direct payments. It said it could arrange for an officer to contact her and fully explore whether this could meet Ms Y’s needs. It said it would continue to work with the local care market to secure provision to meet the needs of all residents.
20. Also, in late February 2025, the Council suggested supported accommodation but Ms Y did not want this. Mrs X remained unhappy, specifically as there was no support in place for Ms Y and the only options offered were supported accommodation or direct payments.
21. In mid-March 2025 the Council updated Mrs X that it was still looking for a provider. It sent a summary of Ms Y’s needs to day care providers but did not get any positive responses.
22. In late May 2025 the Council wrote to advise it was currently in contact with care provider D. It said if it failed to find a provider it would like her to reconsider the option of direct payments.
23. In late June 2025 care provider D started to support Ms Y.

Findings

24. The Council assessed Ms Y required 18 hours of support per week. It identified care providers which it considered could meet Ms Y’s needs. However, after issues with the support provided by two companies, the care packages broke down. It identified an alternative provider, Provider C, which delayed contacting Mrs X and then Mrs X was not satisfied it could meet Ms Y’s needs. The Council failed to provide Ms Y with any support to meet her eligible care needs between January and June 2025. This was fault. This meant Ms Y’s assessed eligible need for community access away from the family was not met. This also placed Mr and Mrs X under additional strain as they did not get any respite from their caring role.
25. The Council was not at fault for suggesting direct payments as an option but Mrs X was clear that this was not something she wanted to explore. The Council’s continued and repeated suggestion of this, despite Mrs X not wanting to consider direct payments, was fault which caused Mrs X frustration.

Back to top

Agreed Action

26. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Ms Y and pay her £300 to acknowledge the missed support to meet her need for access to community activities.
2. apologise to Mrs X and pay her £300 to acknowledge the frustration and lack of respite caused by the failure to meet Ms Y’s eligible care needs.
27. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apologies.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

29. The Council was at fault causing injustice which it has agreed to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman