Summary: The Council was not at fault for withdrawing Mr X’s respite support. There was also no fault in the Council’s decision not to deviate from its charging policy. It was however at fault for a delay in carrying out a carer’s assessment and delaying the start of support for Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council withdrew his respite support because the person he cares for, Ms Z, refused to contribute towards the respite costs.
2. He said the Council failed to use its discretion and that, as a full-time carer, he needs this support to look after himself. He wants the Council to consider his personal circumstances and find another way to fund the respite without requiring Ms Z to pay.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available, relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), as amended).

7. 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

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X, a carer’s support service, and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. 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

Relevant law and guidance

Charging for social care services: the power to charge

10. A council has a duty to arrange care and support for those with eligible needs, and a power to meet both eligible and non-eligible needs in places other than care homes. A council can choose to charge for non-residential care following a person’s needs assessment. Where it decides to charge, the council must follow the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and have regard to the Care Act statutory guidance. (Care Act 2014, section 14 and 17)

Carer’s Assessment

11. Where somebody provides or intends to provide care for another adult and it appears the carer may have any needs for support, the council must carry out a carer’s assessment. A carer’s assessment must seek to find out not only the carer’s needs for support, but also the sustainability of the caring role itself. This includes the practical and emotional support the carer provides to the adult.
12. As part of the carer’s assessment, the council must consider the carer’s potential future needs for support. It must also consider whether the carer is, and will continue to be, able and willing to care for the adult needing care. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014)

Carer’s Budgets and Respite

13. The Care Act 2014 says the council may meet the carer’s needs by providing a service directly to the adult needing care. The carer must still receive a support plan which covers their needs, and how the council will meet them. The carer’s personal budget must be an amount that enables the carer to meet their needs to continue to fulfil their caring role. It must also consider what the carer wishes to achieve in their day-to-day life. Part of the planning process should be to agree how the carer will use the personal budget to meet their needs. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014)

Replacement Care

14. Replacement care means temporary care provided to an adult when their usual unpaid carer is unable to provide support for a period of time. The term is used to describe care that replaces the support normally given by a family member or friend, rather than adding extra care. It is arranged to give carers a break, cover emergencies, and ensure the adult’s assessed care needs continue to be met safely. In these circumstances, where the form of the replacement care is essentially a homecare service provided to the adult needing care that enables the carer to take a break, it should be considered a service provided to the cared-for person, and thus must be charged to them, not the carer. Replacement care is assessed under the Care Act based on the cared-for adult’s needs, and the carer may also receive a Carer’s Assessment. Funding and eligibility depend on the outcome of these assessments and individual circumstances.

The Council’s Charging Policy - Support for Carers

• Where a carer has eligible support needs of their own, the Council will carry out an assessment of those needs and identify how those needs will be met.
• Where those needs are met by providing a service directly to the carer, the council will not charge for those services.
• Where those needs are met by providing a service directly to the cared for adult, the Council will not charge the carer for that service, however, it may result in a charge to the cared for adult.

What happened

15. In December 2023, Mr X agreed for his friend, Ms Z to move into his home after Ms Z suffered a stroke. Mr X is Ms Z’s sole carer and as such he provides both personal care to her and carries out the domestic tasks in the household.
16. Shortly after taking on the caring role, Mr X realised his responsibilities were having a significant impact on his personal time, particularly as he was also recovering from a recent illness and required time for his own wellbeing.
17. In February 2024, a local organisation, service M – at the time the contracted provider for the Council’s Carers Service – carried out a carer’s assessment on behalf of the Council and awarded Mr X four hours of respite care per week. During this time service M assigned a support worker to help him with domestic tasks.
18. In March 2024, the Council offered Mr X a carer’s assessment, which it said he declined as he already had an assessment from service M. However, Mr X said the support worker from the service M had left and he was once again struggling to support Ms Z.
19. In May 2024, the Council assessed Ms Z’s care needs and identified a care package for her that included 20 hours per week of replacement (respite) care. This provided a support worker to care for Ms Z, enabling Mr X to take a break from his caring role.
20. Mr X and Ms Z mistakenly believed this assessment was Mr X’s carer’s assessment rather than an assessment of Ms Z’s care needs, and assumed the Council would therefore provide respite care free of charge.
21. Shortly afterwards, Ms Z received an invoice for her care package, at which point it became clear the Council was charging her for 20 hours per week of replacement care to allow Mr X respite. The Council stated Ms Z subsequently contacted it to cancel the care package, confirming Mr X had agreed to resume his full caregiving responsibilities.
22. In June 2024, a social worker referred Mr X to the Council after he began struggling again with his caring role and requested additional support for Ms Z to enable him to take a break from caring.
23. In July 2024, the Council decided to carry out a further care needs assessment for Ms Z. The Council said it explained both the purpose of the visit and its charging policy during the visit. The assessment concluded Ms Z would receive 20 hours of care per week, which would give Mr X the option of respite during those periods.
24. The Council commissioned Ms Z’s care package, which commenced in early August 2024. At the same time, the Council completed Ms Z’s financial assessment.
25. In a letter to Ms Z dated November 2024, the Council informed her it had assessed her as being required to make a weekly contribution towards her care and support costs, backdated to early August 2024. The letter also explained Ms Z had the right to request a review of this decision within 20 days if she disagreed. There is no evidence Ms Z exercised this right.
26. In December 2024, the Council reviewed Ms Z’s care and support plan after care workers raised concerns about the nature of the support Mr X had asked them to provide. At the review, the Council clarified the care and support plan was put in place to meet Ms Z’s care needs, and not to provide Mr X with direct support for household tasks.
27. The Council said Ms Z decided to cancel her care package again in December 2024 after confirming that Mr X and a mutual friend would continue to support her. Mr X then asked for a new carer’s assessment, which the Council completed in January 2025. As part of the assessment, the Council told us it asked Mr X how he would manage without formal support for Ms Z, and both he and the mutual friend said they would provide that support.
28. Following Mr X’s carer’s assessment, the Council confirmed by email that any service provided to him which included domestic tasks, as well as services delivered directly to Ms Z (such as assistance with using the commode), would be charged to Ms Z in line with its charging policy. The Council instead offered Mr X two hours a week of domestic support at no cost to him; however, this service would not include any tasks that involved caring for Ms Z.
29. In March 2025, the Council issued Mr X’s carer’s support plan. The Council decided through the carer’s assessment that Mr X was to receive two hours per week of domestic support starting in August 2025. The carer’s support plan also highlighted Mr X requested respite, however this was to be considered as a service for Ms Z.
30. Mrs B complained on behalf of Mr X to the Council. She said the Council had failed to exercise discretion by taking Mr X’s personal circumstances into account when it decided to apply its charging policy and not find alternative ways to fund respite from his caring responsibilities.
31. The Council responded it was unable to apply its charging policy differently in Mr X’s case. It said it was expected as a public body to apply its published policy unless there are exceptional reasons to depart from it. The Council confirmed it had considered Mr X’s circumstances but needed to maintain a consistent approach when supporting carers in similar situations.
32. Mrs B and Mr X remained dissatisfied with this response and complained to us in May 2025.
33. The Council began funding Mr X’s carers’ service through direct payments in August 2025, enabling him to pay for two hours of housework per week.
34. The Council told us it had not put this service in place before August 2025 because Mr X did not return the required paperwork.

My findings

The Council’s decision to withdraw Mr X’s respite

35. The Council assessed Ms Z twice in May 2024 and again in July 2024. On both occasions it identified Ms Z had eligible care needs and so it put care packages in place which included 20 hours of care per week. This by default would allow Mr X respite. The Council’s decision to provide care services to Ms Z and charge this back to her as replacement care was in line with the Council’s charging policy and not fault.
36. There is no evidence the Council withdrew Mr X’s respite. Instead, Ms Z cancelled her care package (which was in place to allow Mr X to have respite) when she became aware the Council was charging her for it. The financial assessment concluded Ms Z had sufficient finances to contribute to the cost of her care.
37. The Council’s charging policy enables it to exercise discretion. The Council told us it departs from its charging policy if it determines it is not feasible to identify other ways of supporting the care giver or cared for person. However, the Council decided that this did not apply in Mr X’s case.
38. It assessed Ms Z’s finances and decided she had sufficient funds to contribute to the care package which would allow Mr X to take respite. When Ms Z said she did not wish to pay for her care package, the Council asked Mr X how he intended to continue supporting her. Mr X said that he and a mutual friend would continue to provide Ms Z with support. The Council also offered Mr X two hours of carers’ support and explained that he would not be charged for this, provided it was used solely to support him and not Ms Z. The Council decided it could support Mr X through the two hours of carers’ relief and Mr X confirmed he would continue to meet Ms Z’s care needs. The Council considered both Mr X’s and Ms Z’s personal circumstances in deciding it would not need to deviate from its charging policy. The Council did this in line with paragraph 14 above and this was not fault.

Mr X’s carer’s assessments

39. The Council carried out carer’s assessments for Mr X in February 2024 and again in January 2025. However, the evidence shows it missed an opportunity to do one in June 2024 when a social worker referred Mr X to the Council because he was struggling in his caring role. On balance, the Council should have carried out the carer’s assessment at this point rather than carrying out another care needs assessment for Ms Z. Not doing so was fault and causes uncertainty around whether more support could have been offered to Mr X earlier.
40. Following Mr X’s carer’s assessment in January 2025, the Council issued his carer’s support plan in March 2025, but the support did not begin until August 2025. The Council said this was because Mr X had not returned the required paperwork. We would however expect a council to follow this up rather than letting the matter drift. On balance, had the Council followed this up with Mr X, the support could have started sooner. This was fault and caused Mr X uncertainty about whether his support could have been put in place earlier.

Back to top

Action

41. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to take the following action:
1. Apologise and make a payment of £150 to Mr X to acknowledge the uncertainty caused by both the delay in carrying out his carer’s assessment and by delaying the start of Mr X’s housework support. 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 I have recommended.
42. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

43. I have found fault and the Council agreed to my recommendation to remedy the injustice caused by the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman