Summary: The Council was at fault for its failure to properly assess Ms X and her family’s care needs, for its failure to follow her communication passport and for the delay in responding to her complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X to acknowledge the distress, frustration and impact of the lack of support. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council applied its unreasonable behaviour policy.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council:
1. failed to properly assess her care and support needs. She says the care it then provided was not fit for purpose and did not meet her or her family’s needs. Ms X says this had a significant impact on her physical and mental health and on the whole family.
2. froze her direct payment account in 2023 and failed to provide information on the correct hourly rate in 2023 which meant she was unable to pay her carer.
3. failed to have regard to the Equality Act and did not adhere to her communication passport which added to her distress and frustration.
4. is treating her as a vexatious complainant which is affecting her ability to raise issues and is causing her significant frustration.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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

What I have and have not investigated

7. As I have set out at paragraph 4 above, we cannot consider events which occurred more than 12 months before someone complained to us unless there are good reasons for the delay. We can only do so if:
• We are confident that there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair, and meaningful decision, and
• We are satisfied that the complainant could not reasonably be expected to have complained sooner
8. Ms X complained to the Council about her care and support in May 2024. The Council did not respond until January 2025. Ms X then complained to us in May 2025. Due to the Council’s delay, I have considered what has happened since June 2023 when Ms X requested emergency support, until early September 2025 when the Council wrote to Ms X regarding its unreasonable behaviour policy. I have not considered any earlier issues. The records show Ms X was aware of and frequently used the Council’s complaints procedure which signposted her to the Ombudsman. It was open to her to refer earlier issues to us sooner and there are no good reasons to consider those now.
9. I have not investigated Ms X’s complaint at 1b). Ms X says she received nine hours of support from a personal assistant between February 2021 and June 2023. She was unable to pay the personal assistant between January 2023 and June 2023 as the Council did not provide details of what the hourly rate should be and then froze the account. She raised this repeatedly and the Council said it would look into it when she was no longer in crisis.
10. Ms X says she paid the personal assistant herself to resolve the issue and then went without support as she was unable to pay the personal assistant after June 2023. In late 2025 Ms X says the Council removed the remaining funds from the frozen direct payment account. In March 2026 Ms X complained to the Council about this.
11. In early April 2026 the Council agreed to liaise with finance to address Ms X’s queries. The Council must have the opportunity to investigate and reply to a complaint. Once the Council has investigated and responded to Ms X, if she remains unhappy it is open to her to come to us with a new complaint on this issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. Ms 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

Needs assessment and care planning

14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Section 19(3) of the Care Act gives councils power to meet an adult’s needs for care and support if the needs appear urgent even if an assessment has not taken place.
17. The personal budget must always be enough to meet the person’s care and support needs.

The Equality Act

18. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
19. 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.
20. The reasonable adjustment duty is set out in the Equality Act 2010 and applies to any body which carries out a public function. It aims to make sure that a disabled person can use a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard usually offered to non-disabled people.
21. Service providers are under a positive and proactive duty to take steps to remove or prevent obstacles to accessing their service. If the adjustments are reasonable, they must make them.

What happened

22. The following is a summary of the main events relevant to this complaint.
23. Ms X has autism and health conditions which impact her mobility. She uses a wheelchair to access outdoors. She lived with her husband, another relative and five children who have multiple needs. She has an agreed communication passport with the Council explaining how it will communicate with her. This includes commitments that:
• Written communication must be clear, concise and without jargon.
• For meetings, first contact should be made via email with introductions, a breakdown of the proposed work to be completed, the reason for the meeting/appointment request, a proposed agenda and confirmation that the written passport has been received and read.
• A choice of three or more dates/times should be offered for Ms X to respond back to.
• Ms X requires the attendance of a trusted advocate of her choosing when attending meetings.
• Ms X needs calls where possible to be pre-booked. Ms X prefers video calls over phone calls if a longer conversation is required.
24. In June 2023 Ms X asked to meet with the Council’s Adult Social Care. A social worker met with Ms X to assess her needs and produced a care and support plan in early July 2023. This set out that Ms X required emergency support of 38.5 hours per week to support with her personal care and getting dressed, to assist her and the family with breakfast, lunch and evening meal preparation and light household tasks.
25. The Council commissioned care provider A to support Ms X. Ms X raised concerns about the support provided by the care provider in a meeting with the social worker in July 2023. These included that its workers would not turn up at the correct time, struggled to communicate in English, refused to use appropriate cleaning products, cooked rotten food and refused to carry out certain tasks. She also requested more support as the family was due to move to a bigger house which was causing her additional stress.
26. In August 2023 Ms X and the family moved home. They received no additional support from the Council.
27. In October 2023 Ms X told the Council Mr X would be leaving the country for the month of December 2023 and she required additional support for her and the family. During November 2023 Ms X suggested potential support options to the social worker which the Council did not agree to. In late November 2023 Ms X fired care provider A due to her continued concerns about the quality of care it provided. Ms X’s friend and a relative stepped in to support Ms X with caring for her children. In early December the Council changed Ms X’s care provider to care provider B.
28. In early December the Council told Ms X that social worker 1 would no longer support her. Instead, a senior officer would support her in the interim until it identified a new social worker and would carry out a new needs assessment. It told Ms X it would continue to search for a more appropriate support provider for her. Ms X met with the senior officer and a manager in late December 2023. Shortly after Mr X returned home. He was unable to support Ms X with her needs or with managing the home due to his own health issues.
29. Care provider B started to support Ms X. Ms X said the care workers’ English was limited and care workers could not cook. Ms X says she had to repeatedly buy takeaways because of this. Care provider B also told the Council the hours of care were insufficient. The Council agreed to increase the care package to 40 hours of care and support per week. It said the care workers can and should cook for the family and this was part of the current support plan.
30. In late January 2024 the officer sent Ms X an updated needs assessment. Ms X says this lacked basic detail. She therefore set out her own needs.
31. The Council appointed social worker 2 in February 2024 to support Ms X and produce an accurate assessment of hers and the family’s needs. Ms X again reported that the care workers could not cook meals from scratch.
32. The Council agreed to provide Ms X with 52.5 hours of support per week from late March 2024.
33. In May 2024 Ms X complained to the Council.
34. The Council updated Ms X’s needs assessment and support plan and increased the agreed care package to 128 hours a week in June 2024. The records show Ms X only received a weekly average of 69 hours of support from late June 2024 to September 2025.
35. The 2024 plan included the importance of Ms X receiving the right support with meals due to her and her children’s individual needs and likes with food preparation and nutritional needs. Ms X required support to prepare all meals including breakfast and dinner for the children. It stated Ms X required support with the preparation of nutritionally balanced meals that accommodated her health conditions and ensuring batch cooking and freezer meals were available to reduce the reliance on takeaways.
36. In early January 2025 the Council wrote to Ms X in response to her complaint of May 2024. In summary it found:
• Ms X’s Care Act assessments did not reflect her holistic needs or reflect the complexity of the needs of the whole family. They failed to include key information regarding the needs of the whole family and made no reference to her communication passport.
• Ms X had a poor experience with care provider A and the Council did not step in early enough to change the service. It said there was a lack of escalation and urgency despite knowing the impact the care provider was having on the family.
• There was a lack of knowledge of the Council’s statutory duties under the Care Act and little initiative taken to try and intervene to support Ms X and her family.
• It had not provided the support Ms X required with her house move which impacted her mental and physical health.
• Actions were not taken to explore other creative options to meet Ms X and the family’s needs.
• In late 2023 it had appointed a senior officer to support Ms X with a view to achieving better outcomes. However, this officer did not have the capacity to be practically involved. It acknowledged Ms X required more practical support at home to manage the change in care providers. It said the officer aimed to assess Ms X’s needs so it could find better care arrangements for the whole family. However, it had focused on the assessment completion more than the interventions required at that time.
• It apologised for those occasions where Ms X felt her communication passport was not followed. It said this was never intentional.
• It had appointed social worker 2 and was sorry this was not successful, but it was now working with social worker 3 to progress direct payments and the use of a personal assistant.
37. The Council said it needed to learn from the complaint about how it assessed and supported families with complex and multiple needs. It also needed to learn about the need to intervene in timely ways and be more creative in achieving better support and outcomes. It apologised and offered Ms X £2100. This comprised £1000 for distress, £500 for risk of harm, £300 for time and trouble in writing the complaint and £25 a month for 12 months for failure to provide a service.
38. It noted staff had now received mandatory autism training and that Equality Act training was part of the mandatory training required by all staff.
39. Ms X remained unhappy and complained to us.
40. In July 2025 Ms X says the Council provided an interim care package of 132 hours a week of support, as a direct payment managed by the Council’s commissioned provider. It appointed a social worker to carry out a full assessment and to propose a revised care and support plan for Ms X. The Council has yet to complete this.
41. In response to our enquiries the Council confirmed that in addition to the training outlined above it had held Care Act refresher training with Adult Social Care managers. It was also promoting closer working between Adult Social Care and Children’s Services including a joint training offer for principle social workers for adults and children.

Findings

42. The Council failed to properly assess and then meet Ms X’s care and support needs. It failed to assess and meet the family’s needs as a whole. The Council has acknowledged they are a family with complex and multiple needs. This was fault. The Council has already acknowledged through its complaints procedure that there were faults in the way it assessed Ms X’s needs as set out in the summary at paragraph 36.
43. The Council’s initial emergency package of care comprised 38.5 hours a week of support. When the Council completed a comprehensive assessment of the needs of Ms X and the wider family it agreed to provide 128 hours of support a week, which is a significant difference. Ms X had repeatedly told the Council she and the family were in crisis. I cannot say, even on balance, had the Council properly assessed Ms X’s needs sooner she would have received 128 hours of support from the outset. It is likely the Council’s delays impacted Ms X and the wider family and led to an increased need for support. However, Ms X and the family clearly missed out on a significant amount of support they should have received. It also caused them significant distress and frustration.
44. When the Council did increase the care package in late June 2024 it failed to commission the full care package necessary to meet Ms X and her family’s needs. The records show that on average the family received significantly fewer hours of support, 69 hours, than the 128 hours it had assessed them as needing. This was fault and meant Ms X and her family’s needs were not fully met.
45. Ms X repeatedly raised concerns about the initial care package including that care workers could not cook meals from scratch. The Council contacted the care provider which confirmed care workers could and should cook meals and this was within the care and support plan for Ms X. The Council failed to fully explore and respond to this issue. Ms X says she had to regularly buy takeaways because of this. We consider whether Council maladministration (fault) causes injustice. I cannot now say whether that fault by the Council meant Ms X had to rely on takeaways. However, it is likely Ms X was put to greater expense than she should have been, and this caused her significant frustration.
46. The Council also delayed taking action when Ms X first raised her concerns about care provider A. The care provider did not appear to have a clear understanding of the support it was expected to provide which added to Ms X’s distress and frustration and meant even though care was provided, it did not meet the family’s assessed care needs.
47. Ms X was unhappy the Council’s complaint response did not address every issue she raised. Ms X’s complaint to the Council was 12 pages long and detailed. I am satisfied the Council’s response proportionately addressed the key issues she raised. Ms X’s communication passport does not require the Council to respond to every single point. The Council is required to make reasonable adjustments, and the response was appropriate to address the concerns she raised.
48. The Council has accepted it did not always comply with Ms X’s communication passport which was fault. It apologised to her. It confirmed that all officers have since had mandatory autism training and that equality training is a mandatory part of training for all staff. The Council has also recently updated its autism strategy, which was approved by the Council in September 2025. This sets out the Council’s commitment to support autistic residents and actions it intends to take over the next 12 months. I am satisfied the Council has taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice caused by that fault.
49. The Council significantly delayed responding to Ms X’s complaint. This was fault which added to Ms X’s frustration.

Remedy and Service Improvements

50. Where we find fault causing someone a significant injustice, we aim to recommend remedies for that injustice that focus on putting the person back in the position they should be in if the fault had not occurred. The Council has already apologised, is reassessing Ms X’s needs and has put in place an interim support plan going forward to meet the family’s needs.
51. The Council has already offered Ms X £2,100. I have considered whether this adequately remedies the injustice caused as a result of the faults I have identified. The records show Ms X received around half the hours she should have received over a 14 month period. They also show the care workers failed to prepare meals in line with the care and support plan. To fully acknowledge the injustice Ms X was put to, I have therefore recommended an additional £500.
52. In response to Ms X’s complaint the Council has already undertaken appropriate staff training to address the faults identified in this complaint. I have therefore not recommended any further service improvements.
53. Although Ms X is receiving an interim care package the Council has yet to finalise her needs assessment and care and support plan. It appointed a social worker nine months ago specifically to complete this task. The continued delay is fault which causes additional uncertainty over whether Ms X’s interim care package is sufficient to meet her needs.

Unreasonable complainant behaviour

The Council’s procedure

54. The Council’s procedure defines unreasonable and persistently unreasonable complainant behaviour as ‘unreasonable and unreasonably persistent complainants are those complainants who, because of the nature of their behaviour, and/or frequency of their contact with the Council, hinder Camden’s consideration of their own and/or other people’s complaints’. It says, ‘unreasonable complainant behaviour may include one or two isolated incidents or behaviour over time’.
55. The procedure sets out that the service should first seek to resolve unreasonable complainant behaviour locally and should write to the complainant to warn them about their behaviour and the consequences of further action. This is formal warning 1. Depending on the circumstances it may be appropriate for a further formal warning to be sent.
56. Where a complainant’s behaviour is found to be unreasonable by the Borough Solicitor or relevant Director or Assistant Director the actions that may be implemented include: requesting contact in a particular form, requiring contact to take place with one named member of staff/team only, banning them from sending emails to some or all officers and letting them know the Council will not reply to further contact from them on a specific topic of complaint.
57. Such decisions would be recorded in a letter to the complainant setting out when this decision would be reviewed. The complainant can appeal to the Chief executive or may be referred to the Ombudsman.

What happened

58. Ms X submitted a new complaint to the Council in late March 2025.
59. In July 2025 senior Council officers met with Ms X and her representative to discuss her complaints. The Council said she had raised a lot of complaints and the volume of complaints did not necessarily lead to the outcomes Ms X expected. It proposed that Ms X could submit new complaints to the Council but it would decide which were significant and required investigation. Ms X said there were 43 outstanding complaints she had identified through a subject access request. The Council said given the nature and number it was not confident continuing to deal with these through the complaints process would help achieve resolution. It went on to say that its priority was maintaining a working relationship and ensuring Ms X received service and support. The complaints process was obstructing that. It said it would write outlining the discussed proposals.
60. The Council wrote to Ms X in early September 2025. The letter said it was responding to Ms X’s email of late March where she set out a detailed complaint. It said the Council’s Corporate Management Team had considered the history of complaints Ms X had made, the volume and nature of correspondence and the duration and impact of them on the Council and individuals receiving these.
61. It noted Ms X had made at least 40 formal complaints and many more emails of complaint and that she had not taken her dissatisfaction with the outcome of many of those to the Ombudsman. It set out all the factors it had considered. It provided examples of recent behaviour including 11 emails sent on one day in June which were copied to a number of different officers and said her complaints also had a significant personal element directed at named officers.
62. It said it would not investigate her current complaint or any of her outstanding complaints and that future complaints must be sent to a specific email inbox. The Council would only respond if it believed the complaint was serious enough to investigate. It asked her to stop copying emails to senior officers and councillors. It said she should continue working with Council staff and teams who were supporting the family. It said the decision would be reviewed in 24 months. It referred Ms X to the Ombudsman.
63. The letter confirmed what was discussed at the July 2025 meeting Ms X attended.

Findings

64. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
65. The Council has had regard to its unreasonable complainant policy, has set out its reasoning and has explained the restrictions it has placed on Ms X’s contact with the Council both in person and in writing. It wrote to Ms X setting out its reasoning and when the restrictions would be reviewed. It has not denied Ms X the opportunity to complain but has set up a dedicated email address to which she should submit her concerns which it will then consider to see if they are significant enough to result in an investigation. As it has followed its policy, there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council has done this.

Back to top

Agreed Action

66. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise again to Ms X and pay her £2600 which includes the £2100 it has already offered to acknowledge the distress, frustration, missed provision, risk of harm, uncertainty and time and trouble she was put to by the Council’s faults. 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 apology.
2. finalise Ms X’s needs assessment and care and support plan.
67. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

68. I find fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman