Summary: We have found fault in the Council’s actions. The Council failed to provide a contingency care plan for Mr D, there was poor communication and there were delays in providing support. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay a symbolic sum, review Mr D’s care plan and carry out a service improvement.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains on behalf of her brother, Mr D, who lacks the mental capacity to make the complaint. She says the Council failed to put in place an appropriate contingency care plan when Mr D’s main carer, his mother, was unable to provide care. She also complains about poor communication, lack of planning and delays in the provision of the support.

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 have spoken to Ms B and I have considered the evidence that she and the Council have provided, relevant law, policy and guidance and both sides’ comments on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law, guidance and policies

5. The Care Act 2014, the Care and the Support Statutory Guidance 2014 set out the Council’s duties towards adults who require care and support. The Council also has its own policies.
6. The Council has a duty to assess adults who have a need for care and support. If the needs assessment identifies eligible needs, the Council will provide a support plan which outlines what services are required to meet the needs and a personal budget which sets out the costs to meet the needs.
7. Section 27 of the Care Act 2014 says councils should keep care and support plans under review. The CASS Guidance says councils should review plans at least every 12 months. They should carry out reviews as quickly as is reasonably practicable in a timely manner proportionate to the needs to be met. Councils must also conduct a review if an adult or a person acting on the adult’s behalf makes a reasonable request for one.
8. The CASS Guidance also says:
• If there is any information or evidence that suggests that circumstances have changed in a way that may affect the efficacy, appropriateness or content of the plan, then the local authority should immediately conduct a review to ascertain whether the plan requires revision. For example this could be where a carer is no longer able to provide the same level of care.
• The review should be performed as quickly as is reasonably practicable. As with care and support planning, it is expected that in most cases the revision of the plan should be completed in a timely manner proportionate to the needs to be met. Where there is an urgent need to intervene, local authorities should consider implementing interim packages to urgently meet needs while the plan is revised. However, local authorities should work with the person to avoid such circumstances wherever possible by ensuring that any potential emergency needs are identified as part of the care and support planning stage and planned for accordingly.

What happened

9. Mr D is an adult man who has a learning disability, autism and a mental health diagnosis of anxiety. He has a high level of needs and requires 24-hour care.
10. He lives with his mother, Mrs E, who is his main carer and he also receives a package of care from the Council. The Council’s care plan for Mr D dated August 2023 said Mr D was entitled to (per week):
• 2 days’ attendance at a day centre, with 1-to-1 support. This was to be increased if there was availability at the day centre.
• 14 hours 1-to-1 support from a personal assistant from an agency.
11. The care package was provided via direct payments which meant the family received a direct payment to pay the care providers rather than the Council paying the care providers directly.
12. In August 2024 the social worker organised a ‘bring the team around Mr D’ meeting with the aim to ‘share knowledge of Mr D’s life, how to positively meet his needs and share our care plans into hopefully one consistent document.’ Ms B says the meeting was organised at the family’s request as there had been historic and ongoing challenges in the support provision for Mr D.
13. Ms B and Ms E attended the meeting, as well as agencies and professionals involved with Mr D. There are no minutes of the meeting, but Ms B says the family informed the Council at the meeting that Ms E would have surgery in December 2024. Ms E would be unable to provide any care for Mr D while she recovered from the surgery so a contingency care plan had to be put in place.
14. Mr D’s case was reallocated to another social worker on 28 September 2024 ‘to support [Mr D] with future care planning, including exploration of supported living placements and additional support when mum, [Ms E], undergoes a planned operation towards the end of the year.’
15. The new social worker contacted Ms B on 22 November 2024 to carry out a re-assessment of Mr D because of the upcoming surgery. She planned to carry out the assessment on 28 November 2024. Ms B told the social worker that it was now too late to carry out the assessment and put in new care arrangements for Mr D. Mr D could not cope with change quickly because of his autism.
16. Ms B spoke to the social worker on 2 December 2024 and the following was agreed:
• Mr D would live with Ms B and her husband, Mr B, from 18 December (day of the surgery) and they would both take time off work until 8 January to become full-time carers for Mr D and Ms E.
• After 8 January, Mr D would attend the day centre 3 days a week and Ms B would be his carer for 2 days a week.
• Further care provision had to be put in place from February onwards as Ms B and Mr B would return to work full-time.
• The Council would pay Ms B and Mr B for the care they provided.
17. The social worker re-assessed Mr D on 6 January 2025 and Ms B was present during the assessment. Ms B told the social worker that more support was needed while Ms E continued to recover from surgery, but also in the long term as Ms E would not be able to provide the level of 1-to-1 support she had been providing before the surgery.
18. The current care plan said Mr D was entitled to:
• 3 days’ attendance at the day centre with 1-to-1 support per week.
• 3 return taxis to the day centre.
• 4 hours support from a personal assistant per week.
• Overnight respite stay twice a month (provided by Ms B).
19. The social worker agreed to increase the 1-to-1 support to 20 hours per week and said the care plan would be amended to reflect this. The social worker also said the carer’s assessments for Ms B and Ms E should be updated.
20. Ms B emailed the Council on 17 January 2025 asking for an update about the new care plan, the extra hours that had been agreed and the carer’s assessments.
21. Ms B emailed the Council on 27 January 2025 asking for an update. She said she and Mr B were due to return to work in a few days and Mr D could not yet return to live with Ms E so the matter was urgent. The family had used all the surplus funds in the direct payment account, as agreed by the Council, but these funds had now run out.
22. Ms B chased the Council again on several occasions in the following weeks. The Council agreed the increased support and the changes to the care plan on 27 February 2025.
23. Mr D gradually started to return to live with Ms E from 6 March 2025 onwards.

Ms B’s complaint – March 2025

24. Ms B complained to the Council in March 2025 and said:
• There had been a lack of communication and support from the Council during a period of crisis for her family despite the Council being informed of the upcoming challenges.
• The family had to find and put in place a lot of the care arrangements themselves without the Council’s support.
• The family informed the Council at the meeting in August 2024 that Ms E’s recovery from surgery would be 1 year with a mid-way sign off at 6 months.
• The family received no minutes or record of the meeting and there was no follow-up.
• A new social worker contacted the family at the end of November 2024 to re-assess Mr D. Ms B told the social worker that this was too late as Ms E was due to have surgery in a few weeks’ time. Changes to Mr D’s care plan could take up to 6 months to a year because it was difficult for Mr D to adapt to change because of his autism.
• The family therefore agreed to take over the care package themselves but could only do so until the end of January because of work commitments.
• The social worker did not contact the family again until 6 January and then agreed to increase the support to 20 hours per week. But there were then further delays in the Council agreeing the additional support and the revision of the care plan.

Council’s response – April 2025

25. The Council responded in April 2025 and upheld Ms B’s complaint. The Council said:
• The Council’s lack of communication had resulted in distress and uncertainty.
• The re-allocation of Mr D’s case to a new social worker resulted in ‘some momentum and urgency of your family’s situation being lost.’
• The Council accepted that, by the time the social worker contacted the family in November 2024, the Council’s intervention came too late and the family had to resolve the situation.
• The contacts made by the Council to the family had been ‘sporadic’.
• Ms B had been required to chase responses to emails to progress matters and this should not have been Ms B’s responsibility.
• The manager had spoken to the officers involved as part of a case review ‘to highlight inconsistencies and express my disappointment in the level of service we have provided.’
26. The Council proposed, going forward, to have a monthly ‘keeping in touch discussion’ between the social worker and Ms B.

Complaint – May 2025.

27. Ms B complained to the Council on 26 May 2025 and said that, despite the Council’s promise on 10 April 2025 that the social worker would have monthly discussions with Ms B about Mr D, she had not had any further contact from social worker since 1 April 2025.
28. The Council responded on 2 June 2025 and said that, due to unforeseen circumstances, the social worker had not been in the office. The Council said it would add a recurring appointment to the diary for the monthly discussion with the manager included as a contingency. The Council said Ms B would receive a date that day for the review of Mr D’s care plan and the carer’s assessments.

Further information

29. The Council provided Ms B with suggested dates for the reviews as promised on 2 June 2025 and Ms B replied on 5 June 2025 but then heard nothing from the Council. Ms B complained to the Council on 4 July 2025 and the Council apologised for the delay.
30. Mr D’s updated care plan was completed on 7 August 2025. The care plan includes a contingency plan which set out what would happen in an emergency. The emergency contacts are Ms E, Ms B and Mr B. If a change in circumstances occurs that is not urgent, then the family should contact the Council for a re-assessment of Mr D.
31. The carer’s assessment of Ms E took place on 27 August 2025. In the assessment, Ms E describes how she has been a single carer to Mr D for 25 years. This is a 24/7 role as Mr D cannot be left alone. Ms E says she gets some relief from the hours when Mr D is at the day centre or with his personal assistant, but these hours are used to carry out all the other tasks she needs to complete. Ms E says she has no social life or any life outside of caring for Mr D and there is no other family support available apart from Ms B and Mr B.

Analysis

32. There was fault, initially, in the Council’s failure to provide an updated care plan for Mr D in August 2024. An updated care plan should have been provided for several reasons.
33. Firstly, the previous plan was dated August 2023 so the Council should have carried out its yearly review.
34. Secondly, the aim of the multi-disciplinary meeting was to bring together all the people involved with Mr D to share knowledge on how to meet his needs and to bring together the care plans into one document.
35. Finally, the family told the Council at the meeting that Ms E would have surgery in December and would not be able to provide any care for several months at least. So the Council knew it should have carried out an urgent review of the care plan to plan for the December surgery.
36. The Council did not carry out a review of Mr D’s needs in August 2024 nor did it provide a care plan for Mr D. This was fault. There was no follow up at all from the meeting in August 2024 and the Council did not provide any minutes of the minutes. This was fault.
37. The Council did not start the preparation for the surgery until November 2024, when it was too late. the Council knew, in August 2024 that Mr D found it difficult to adapt to change so any changes in the care plan should have been introduced as soon as possible so that Mr D had time to adapt. So the failure to plan for Ms E’s upcoming surgery was fault.
38. It is not clear what the Council would have done if Ms B and Mr B had not volunteered to take on Ms E’s role.
39. The Council has also upheld Ms B’s complaint that there were then further delays and poor communication in January 2025. I agree this was further fault. The Council agreed, belatedly, to increase the support for Mr D on 6 January 2025. It also knew how urgent this request was as it knew that Ms B and Mr B had to return to work in February 2025 and the surplus in the direct payment account had been spent, but the Council did not approve the actual increase until 27 February 2025.
40. I agree with the Council’s analysis in its complaint response that it should not have been Ms B’s role to chase the Council for progress. And there were further delays even after the complaint response and after the Council promised the Council would have a monthly discussion with Ms B about Mr D. This was further fault.

Injustice and remedy

41. As I have found fault in the Council’s actions, I will consider what injustice has been suffered and if the injustice can be remedied. The aim of the Ombudsman’s remedy is to put the person in the position they would have been if the fault had not happened.
42. I am of the view that Mr D has not suffered a significant injustice because of the Council’s fault, but that is only because Ms B and Mr B stepped in to support him. But I accept that the lack of proactive action, planning and communication from the Council would have caused significant distress to Ms E, Ms B and Mr B who had to manage without the appropriate Council support.
43. The Ombudsman is not a court and we do not provide compensation. In complaints such as this one, where there was no direct financial loss, the Ombudsman can suggest a small symbolic financial remedy so I recommend that the Council pays the family £300 for the distress caused.
44. Ms B also says that there is still no appropriate contingency plan in place for Mr D if the same problem occurred again. I note that Mr D’s care plan contains contingency measures but these are the short terms actions which would be taken in an emergency. I think what Ms B is seeking is a long-term contingency care plan for Mr D if Ms E was unable to continue to provide the care she currently does. I agree that this is something the Council should consider as part of its care planning with the family.
45. I have also made service improvement recommendations to reduce the risk of the same fault occurring again. The fault I have found relates to a failure to review the care plan in August 2024, to provide a revised care plan including a contingency plan and the failure to keep a record of the meeting so I have made service improvements in relation to this.

Back to top

Action

46. The Council has agreed to take the following actions within one month of the final decision. It will:
• Apologise in writing to the family for the fault that has been identified.
• Pay Ms B (who represents the family) £300 for the distress caused.
• Offer a review of Mr D’s care plan with a focus on adding a long-term contingency plan which considers what support the Council would put in place if there is a decrease in the support Ms E can provide or if Ms E is unable to provide any support.
• Ensure that relevant staff understand the Council’s duties in keeping good records and understand when the Council has a duty to review the care plan including any contingency planning. It will provide training or guidance as needed.

Back to top

Decision

47. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed the remedy to address the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman