Summary: There was fault by the Council as it delayed completing social care assessments, care and support plans and in determining the dates Mrs X’s parents’ savings fell to the threshold for council funding for social care and support. This caused avoidable distress and confusion. The Council has made retrospective payments which is a partial remedy. It will also take the following action: issue a written apology, make a symbolic payment to Mrs X, review her parents’ financial assessments and review case allocation, assessment and care planning procedures.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing social care assessments and care and support plans for her parents Mr and Mrs Y and they did not receive any funding from the Council for their care. She said this caused a financial loss and avoidable distress.

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. An organisation should not adopt a blanket or uniform approach or policy that prevents it from considering the circumstances of a particular case. We may find fault in the actions of organisations that ‘fetter their discretion’ in this way.
4. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. 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

7. A council must carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. (Care Act 2014, section 9). It must then apply national criteria to decide if a person is eligible for care.
8. An assessment should be carried out over an appropriate and reasonable timescale taking into account the urgency of needs. Councils should give the person an indicative timescale and keep them updated. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014, Paragraph 6.24)

9. If a council decides a person needs support, it should prepare a care and support plan which specifies the needs identified in the assessment, says whether they meet any eligibility criteria and sets out how the council is going to meet them. It should give a copy of the care and support plan to the person. (Care Act 2014, sections 24 and 25)

10. The Care Act spells out the duty to meet eligible needs (needs which meet the eligibility criteria). (Care Act 2014, section 18)
11. The care and support plan must set out a personal budget. A personal budget is a statement which specifies the cost to the local authority of meeting eligible needs, the amount a person must contribute and the amount the council must contribute. (Care Act 2014, section 26)
12. A personal budget can be taken as a direct payment. Direct payments are cash payments a council gives to an adult or their agreed representative to enable them to arrange care and support themselves
13. Adult social care and support is chargeable. If an adult has capital (for example savings) over £23,500, they must pay for their care in full themselves. This is called the ‘capital threshold’ or just ‘threshold’. Those with capital of less than £23,500 will receive council funding towards the cost of their care, but they pay a charge for care and support services from their income.

What happened

Background

14. Mrs Y has dementia and Mr Y had Parkinson’s disease. They lived together in their own home. Mrs X and her siblings had power of attorney to manage their parents’ finances. Mr Y died in August 2025 and Mrs Y moved into a care home after his death.

2024

15. In July, Mrs X contacted the Council to ask for care and support for her parents. Mr and Mrs Y had been self-funding their care and support at home.
16. A social worker noted they carried out a ‘virtual care needs assessment’ during a phone call with Mrs X in the last week of July. The virtual assessment the Council has disclosed is in the case notes and is for both Mr and Mrs Y. It does not say whether either of them is eligible for care and support. The case notes summarise what Mrs X told the social worker about her parents:
• Mr and Mrs Y were funding their own package of care four days a week between 10.30 and 13.30, a cleaner came in once a week and a family member supported them at weekends.
• The Council was going to take various actions including referring them to ‘ASC Connect’ for social care assessments and to the finance team for a financial assessment.
• The couple provided care for each other.
17. A social worker emailed Mrs X to say Mr and Mrs Y were going to be referred to a community social care team.
18. Mr Y went into hospital in August. Mrs X emailed the Council to say he was due to be discharged and needed additional care. She said her parents had about £50,000 in savings.
19. The Council told us Mr Y’s capital fell to the threshold in August 2024.
20. Mr and Mrs Y’s cases were allocated to a different social worker in August. The social worker went on sick leave. The Council did not re-assign the case for seven months.
21. The finance team did a financial assessment for Mr Y by phone in the middle of September. Mrs X was told to send in proof of savings. The financial assessment for Mr Y said he was a full cost payer because of capital above the threshold. The Council wrote to Mrs X and asked for bank statements and cost of private care and date it was paid up to so the Council could work out the date of the capital threshold for Mr Y. The records indicate the Council decided the threshold date for Mr Y was July/August 2024.
22. In the middle of December, the finance team wrote to Mrs X saying Mr Y’s capital fell to the threshold ‘some time ago.’ It went on to say the social care team would tell her when his care funding would be backdated to. Mr Y’s weekly charge for his care (when it was put in place) would be £154.60.

2025

23. A second social worker took over Mr and Mrs Y cases in February 2025. A note said they had arranged a social care assessment. But the Council has provided no social care assessments dated February 2025 for either parent.
24. The Council told us Mrs Y’s capital fell to the threshold in March 2025.
25. At the start of March, the second social worker noted they had considered Mr Y’s needs and could recommend four calls a day. They emailed Mrs X saying she could have a direct payment to arrange care with the care agency the family had already put in place. Mrs Y emailed the second social worker twice in March asking for her parents’ social care assessments and care and support plans. The social worker said these were not finished.
26. In the last week of March, the second social worker emailed ‘previous’ social care assessments for Mr and Mrs Y to Mrs X. Mrs X said these were out of date. She said her parents only had £7000 left in savings. Case notes indicate Mr and Mrs Y were having private care for 10 hours a day. The second social worker said she had recently done reassessments and would be recommending four 30-minute calls a day for Mr and Mrs Y.
27. At the end of March, Mrs X complained to the Council about the matters she has raised with us. A Council manager spoke to her about the complaint and said the cases would be reallocated to a third social worker.
28. Mrs X called the finance team and spoke to an officer. She said her parents had less than £7000 of savings left and had care fees to pay.
29. Mr Y’s social care assessment is dated 4 June. It said:
• He was self-funding daily care from 9 am to 7 pm.
• Family had arranged for an overnight care worker due to a decline in his condition in the past few weeks. This had started on 28 May
• The family had asked for live-in care at home
• He would benefit from 24-hour care in a residential setting due to night-time awakening
30. The social worker put on the assessment form “I told Mrs X that I agree Mr Y needs 24-hour care, but Kent County Council does not provide 24-hour care at home and Mr Y would be best supported in a care home.” The outcome of Mr Y’s assessment was he was eligible for care and support.
31. The case notes indicate direct payment funding was agreed for both parents and Mrs Y would need an up-to-date financial assessment. A social worker emailed Mrs X in the middle of June saying the Council had agreed to fund the cost of live-in care temporarily at £1450 and they would need to pay client contributions on top of that. Mrs X emailed the social worker with some queries including how long funding was agreed for and whether it would be backdated based on the financial assessments. The third social worker said they would answer questions later. There is no evidence of a reply.
32. Mr Y went into hospital in June 2025 where he was diagnosed with a terminal condition. The NHS approved fully-funded end of life care for him. The social worker emailed Mrs X to say the Council would not provide support as the NHS had taken over (from 20 June). They asked Mrs X to send in bank statements for Mrs Y’s financial assessment.
33. At the start of July another family member emailed the social worker saying savings had run out and asked what was happening about funding care already paid for.
34. Mrs X complained to the LGSCO at the end of July. She had not received a response to her Council complaint when she first contacted us.
35. The Council responded to the complaint at the beginning of August. It accepted there had been delay, that assessments had not been sent to Mrs X and the delay was caused by staff absence. The Council apologised. The response said the Council would be reminding staff of the importance of maintaining contact with families and a third social worker had been allocated Mr and Mrs Y’s cases to ‘discuss a re-assessment of need.’
36. The social worker completed a care and support plan for Mr Y in the middle of August 2025. Mr Y’s care and support plan said he had eligible needs for social care and was receiving NHS funded end of life care to meet those needs.
37. Mr Y died in the middle of August 2025.
38. The third social worker completed Mrs Y’s social care assessment in September 2025. This noted:
• Mrs Y now had a live-in care package costing £2100.
• She wanted to stay at home
• She would require 24-hour care and it was not feasible for her to stay at home even with four care calls.
39. Mrs Y’s care and support plan was completed in September and approved in November 2025. She was eligible for care and support and the Council (with the family’s agreement) had decided it was no longer safe for her to remain at home and she required residential care. She moved into a care home shortly after.

Comments from the Council

40. The Council told me Mr Y’s capital fell to the threshold in August 2024 and Mrs Y’s in March 2025.
41. The Council told me it had agreed and paid the following direct payments retrospectively for Mr Y’s care.
• £8627 covering 29 July 2024 to 31 August 2025. This was for three calls a day with an additional call at teatime added from the last week of February 2025.
• £2782 for temporary live-in care from 3 June. Mr Y was then eligible for NHS continuing care funding from 20 June 2025.
42. The Council told me it approved and made the following retrospective payments for Mrs Y’s care:
• £5112 covering 1 March 2025 to 28 September 2025 for four care calls a day.
• £4832 for temporary live in care for six weeks from 3 June to 15 July.
• Ongoing payments of £670 a week until Mrs Y went into permanent residential care
43. The Council also told me:
• It would like to review and recalculate the dates of Mr and Mrs Y’s entitlement to council funding. This was because Mrs Y’s capital was being used to fund Mr Y’s care.
• It did not have a policy not to fund live-in care.
44. Finally, the Council said “regardless of the reasons for staff absence, responsibility remained with the organisation to ensure continuity of service and timely oversight. The delays contributed to confusion regarding eligibility decisions, delayed financial processes being actioned and caused distress, uncertainty and financial pressures for the family at an already difficult time. Service delivery fell below the standard the family were entitled to expect.”

Findings

45. There should have been smooth and timely process of needs assessment, eligibility determination, care and support planning and financial assessment so that Mrs X was clear about what care her parents were entitled to by way of social care and support, and the costs. The Council’s service fell far below expectations, which it has acknowledged.
46. Care and Support Statutory Guidance says councils should complete social care assessments in a reasonable time frame. Mrs X asked the Council for assistance in July 2024. The telephone call she had with an officer in July 2024 which the Council calls a virtual assessment, was not a Care Act assessment, rather a screening conversation. It did not assess Mrs X’s parents’ needs as individuals. Screening cases is not fault, but guidance requires a full assessment to be completed without a significant delay.
47. Mr Y’s social care assessment was not completed until June 2025 and Mrs Y’s September 2025. Taking over a year was not a reasonable timeframe and was fault causing avoidable distress and uncertainty about what Mr and Mrs Y’s individual needs would have been in July 2024 had the Council acted without delay.
48. Mr and Mrs Y’s care and support plans (which should have included their personal budget and client charge as set out in Section 26 of the Care Act) were also delayed similarly because of the assessment delay. This was further fault causing avoidable uncertainty about what care and support the Council would have agreed had their plans been issued by the dates each person’s savings fell to the capital threshold (Mr Y: August 2024 and Mrs Y: March 2025). Mr Y’s care and support plan was not done until August 2025 a few days before he died, by which time the NHS had taken on funding responsibility for his care. Mrs Y’s care and support plan was not completed and approved until November 2025 some 15 months after Mrs X’s request for assistance. Mrs Y’s circumstances and needs had changed radically since July 2024 as her husband had died and she now required residential care.
49. The comment from the social worker that the Council does not fund overnight live-in care (see paragraph 22) is misleading, not in line with Council policy and suggests fettering discretion, as explained at paragraph three. It was fault causing avoidable confusion. In fact, the Council does fund live-in care in some cases including for a six-week period in this case.
50. Mrs X used her parents’ savings (and some of her own money) to fund their care and support when the Council should have stepped in and taken over funding. The Council has made some retrospective payments, but it has noted during this investigation that it needs to review capital depletion due to the complexity of one person using their capital to fund the other’s care. The failure to ensure capital thresholds were calculated with accuracy at the correct time was fault causing avoidable uncertainty about whether Mr and Mrs Y have received all the funding they are/were entitled to.
51. Communication with Mrs X was not in line with our expectations and was fault causing avoidable frustration. I have noted in paragraph 23 that Mrs X asked reasonable and relevant questions about social care for her parents and did not get answers. She also had to keep chasing the Council due to delays and inactivity on her parents’ cases. The complaint response also took from March to August 2025 which was too long. Communication and complaint handling were below our expected standards and this was fault causing avoidable distress and time and trouble.
52. Mrs X has suffered a high degree of avoidable distress dealing with the Council at a time when both her parents were very unwell and her father at the end of his life. The Council’s delay and inaction made matters much worse for her, because she did not have sight of social care assessments and care and support plans and financial assessments/decisions at the appropriate time, she could not use these documents to work out the best way of supporting her parents or financially plan the costs.

Back to top

Agreed Action

53. Within one month of my final decision, the Council will complete the following actions:
1. Issue a written apology to Mrs X. 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 in my findings.
2. Issue a written reminder to adult social care staff of the Council’s position about funding live-in care. (That is, the Council has power to fund live-in care based on an individual’s needs and circumstances and staff should not tell members of the public that it does not fund 24-hour live-in care)
3. Issue a payment of £500 to reflect Mrs X’s avoidable distress, confusion and time and trouble.
4. Complete a review of Mr and Mrs Y’s capital depletion based on information now available about one parent’s capital being used to fund the other’s care. We will require a written copy of the review and a summary of any retrospective changes to funding agreed. (Completion of the review will likely require Mrs X to provide information to the Council)
54. Within three months, the Council will review existing procedures for case allocation, social care assessment and care and support planning within the adult social care department. Those procedures need to set out expected timescales for completion of assessments and care and support plans and an escalation procedure for non-compliance so all staff (including managers who are responsible for reallocation of cases when staff are absent from work) are clear about expectations and legal requirements. We will require a written report of the review of existing procedures and a copy of revised procedures
55. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman