Summary: The Council was at fault in how it decided to meet Mrs X’s needs after she asked for help caring for her adult son. The Council also delayed assessing Mrs X’s needs and responding to her complaint. The fault caused Mrs X significant frustration and uncertainty, for which the Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment. The Council will also revise its policy for carers and issue a staff reminder.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide suitable support to her as a carer for her adult son, Mr Y. Mrs X said this meant she had to continue caring for Mr Y without help, which impacted on her mental and physical health and wellbeing.

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. Mrs 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 law and guidance

Carers

6. The Care Act 2014 (the Act) and Care and Support Statutory Guidance (the Guidance) set out legislation and guidance for councils on how to support carers.
7. Section 10 of the Act says that where somebody provides or intends to provide care for another adult and it appears the carer may have any needs for support, their council must carry out a carer’s assessment.
8. If the carers assessment finds the carer has eligible needs for care and support, the council must meet those needs unless certain circumstances apply (section 20 of the Act).
9. The council must provide the carer with a support plan which covers their needs, and how the council will meet those that are eligible. The support plan must include a personal budget, which is the amount of money the council has allocated to meet those eligible needs. The amount must be sufficient to meet the person’s needs.
10. Direct payments are monetary payments made to individuals who ask for them to meet some or all of their eligible needs. They can be for the value of some or all of the person’s personal budget.
11. The Guidance says support plans must also include certain other information. This includes:
• The needs identified in the carers assessment; and
• Information and advice on what can be done to reduce the needs in question, and to prevent or delay the development of needs in the future.
12. The council may meet a carer’s needs by providing a service directly to the adult needing care. For example, by arranging for the person needing care to go to a day centre or stay away from home with people other than their carer for short periods. This gives the carer respite from their responsibilities. Where a service is provided directly to the adult needing care, even though it is to meet the carer’s needs, that provision should be in the support plan of the person receiving care. It should be detailed in the carer’s support plan as well.
13. In that scenario, the adult receiving care would be liable to pay any charge for the provision and must agree to do so. Decisions on which services are provided to meet a carer’s needs and which are provided to meet the needs of the adult for whom they care, will therefore impact on which individual’s budget includes the cost of meeting those needs. Councils should make this decision as part of the care planning process and should consider whether joint plans for the two individuals may be of benefit.
14. The Guidance also says councils should not set arbitrary upper limits on the costs it is willing to pay to meet needs through certain routes.
15. Councils must review support plans every 12 months, to ensure they remain accurate and continue to meet the carer’s needs.

Complaints handling

16. The Local Authority Social Services and National Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009 set out councils must respond to complaints about adult social care within a maximum of six months. However, they should also investigate a complaint “speedily and efficiently”. The Council’s complaints procedure says that while six months is the maximum, it aims to respond to complaints within 25 working days.

What happened

17. Mrs X cares for her adult son, Mr Y, who is non-verbal and cannot carry out his own personal care. In early 2024, Mr Y became eligible for Continuing Healthcare (CHC). This meant his local NHS Integrated Care Board (ICB) became responsible for funding all of Y’s adult social care.
18. Mrs X supports Y during the day and throughout the night. She asked the Council to assess her needs as a carer in July 2024. The Council called her in August and said it would carry out an assessment. It said that following that assessment, it would issue a support plan which would state it would pay her a one-off direct payment of £300. Mrs X was unhappy and explained she hoped for an ongoing direct payment to pay someone to help with laundry and cleaning. The Council said again that its assessment would result in a one-off payment of £300.
19. The Council began Mrs X’s carer’s assessment in November 2024. It noted Mr Y went to an educational setting during weekdays. When Y was not at the setting, Mrs X met all of his needs, including throughout the night. The assessment noted Mrs X had eligible needs because her role as a carer meant she could not:
• Engage in recreation regularly;
• Take care of her home;
• Access work; and
• Use facilities or services in the local community.
20. The same day, the Council called Mrs X and confirmed it offers carers a direct payment £300. It recommended she accept that offer.
21. The Council completed the carers assessment in late December. It noted Mrs X had further eligible needs because caring for Y meant she should not meet her own nutritional needs and was struggling to care for her other child, a teenager.
22. The Council issued Mrs X’s support plan the same day. It uses a template format which prompted the assessor to confirm if they were going to apply for a £300 payment for the carer, and what the payment was for. The assessor stated the payment would allow Mrs X to access leisure, gym, sports, stress management or relaxation classes to improve her health and wellbeing.
23. A later prompt in the plan stated “in some exceptional circumstances the direct payment can exceed the £300 limit…£400 is the maximum payment that can be commissioned”.
24. Mrs X was unhappy with the Council’s decision and did not accept the £300. She complained to the Council in mid-January 2025. The Council responded in early May and apologised it had delayed responding to Mrs X’s complaint. It accepted it had taken too long to complete Mrs X’s carers assessment. However, it said it was satisfied with its decision to offer Mrs X the £300 one-off payment. It said:
• It gives carers £300 as standard, but “carers must have eligible needs identified during the assessment process to be awarded this payment”;
• It used the carer’s assessment and support plan to decide what the £300 payment was used for. “Therefore, carers have choice on how it is spent in line with the Care Act”; and
• It did not offer payments to cover the cost of respite because respite is for the person receiving care, not the carer.
25. Mrs X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.
26. The Council told us it discusses other options for support during a carer’s assessment, but the grant is a popular choice.
27. The Council has a carers policy which sets out how it will support carers in its area. The Council is aware its carers policy is due for an update. It told the Ombudsman it intended to do that by December 2025 and that it would include details on its approach to £300 one-off direct payments.
28. As of January 2026, the Council has not updated its carers policy. The policy was due for review in June 2017.

Findings

29. The Council told us it offers a standard direct payment of £300 (up to a maximum of £400) to all carers who have eligible needs. It told us the money could be spent in a range of ways, to meet the carers needs. The Council’s approach to the payment is not line with the law and guidance and is fault. The support the council offers to carers must be based on its assessment of their individual eligible needs and not a blanket approach. The possibility for carers to choose how the money is spent is irrelevant if £300 or £400 is insufficient to meet their needs.
30. In addition, the Guidance says councils should not set arbitrary upper limits on how much it is willing to pay for support through certain routes. The Council’s upper limit of £400 is not in line with the Guidance and is fault.
31. The Council applied its approach to Mrs X’s case. It twice offered the £300 before having assessed her needs, which was fault. Without such an assessment, the Council could not have known that £300 would meet Mrs X’s needs.
32. Furthermore, once the Council had assessed Mrs X, it issued her support plan where it recorded it had offered her the £300 for the purpose of buying therapies that would give her respite from her caring responsibilities. However, Mrs X had eligible needs for support to engage in regular recreation, keep her home safe and tidy, continue to stay in work, meet her own nutritional needs, provide suitable care for her teenage child and access the community. There is no evidence the Council considered whether £300 worth of therapy met all of those needs over the course of a year. This was fault.
33. The Council also failed to discuss alternatives to the payment with Mrs X. This meant she had one choice- accept the £300 or receive no support. This was fault.
34. There were other issues with Mrs X’s support plan, which amount to fault. The plan does not include Mrs X’s eligible need for support with employment. It also fails to include any information or advice on what Mrs X could do to reduce her needs and to prevent or delay development of additional needs in future. This was information the Council had to include in the plan, in accordance with the Guidance.
35. The Council was correct to say respite is arranged for the person receiving care. In this case, if Mrs X needed respite, that provision would be included in Mr Y’s support plan, which is owned by the ICB. However, the Council was at fault for placing the responsibility for exploring if respite was necessary for Mrs X onto her. The Council should have contacted the ICB and asked it to review Mr Y’s support plan to ensure it was meeting both his needs and Mrs X’s needs as his carer.
36. While there is no timescale for how long carer’s assessments should take, the Council accepts it took too long. I agree this was fault. Mrs X should not have had to wait six months to be assessed and receive the support plan.
37. The faults set out in this section caused Mrs X avoidable frustration. They also caused her significant uncertainty about what support she could have had, if the Council had acted without fault.

Carers policy

38. The Council’s carers policy is significantly overdue; by over eight years. This was fault. Due to the Council’s delay, the policy does not include up to date information.

Complaints handling

39. The Council was also at fault for delaying responding to Mrs X’s complaint. While councils can take up to six months to respond to adult-social care complaints, we can still find fault when we conclude a council has not acted “speedily and efficiently”, as required by law. Mrs X’s complaint was uncomplicated and should not have taken over three months to investigate. I note this was also longer than the 25 working days the Council’s policy sets as its aim. The delay caused Mrs X further avoidable frustration.
40. The Council has explained the staff dealing with complaints at the time of Mrs X’s complaint were under significant pressure because a key member of staff was unavailable. That issue is now resolved so I have not made a further recommendation.

Back to top

Action

41. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will take the following actions.
1. Apologise to Mrs X for the frustration and uncertainty she experienced because of its failure to properly consider what support she needed as a carer, for the flaws in its support plan and the delay carrying out the assessment and complaint response. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology.
2. Pay Mrs X £500 to recognise that injustice.
3. Contact the ICB to request a joint review of Mr Y and Mrs X’s support plans, to ensure they meet both their needs. Mrs X’s plan should detail how the Council decided the support set out in the plan meets Mrs X’s eligible needs and will continue to do so in the following 12 months. It should also include all the information required by the Guidance.
4. Remind staff carrying out carer’s assessments and support planning that if the carer refuses a direct payment, they should consider how else to meet the carer’s eligible needs.
42. Within two months of the date of my final decision, the Council will issue its revised carers policy. The policy should be clear that the care and support the Council makes available to carers must follow on from an assessment of the person's individual needs. In sharing the policy with staff, the Council should be clear that its previous approach of paying carers £300 as standard is no longer in force.
43. Within two months of the date of my final decision, the Council will also review Mrs X’s case and identify why it took six months to complete her carer’s assessment. It should tell the Ombudsman the outcome of its review and what action it will take, and when by, to prevent such delays in future.
44. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman