Summary: The Council failed to properly record a referral for a social care needs assessment, delayed carrying out a needs assessment, failed to prepare a care and support plan and failed to review whether the support offered was meeting Mr B’s eligible needs. These failings caused Mr B frustration and distress and left him with uncertainty about whether alternative support could have been identified to meet his assessed needs. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and complete a care and support plan with Mr B. It has also agreed to make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that the Council:
• Failed to carry out a care needs assessment until August 2025, despite repeated requests since 2023;
• Failed to arrange an advocate to support him during the care needs assessment;
• Failed to take appropriate action in response to his concerns that his social worker behaved in a rude and unprofessional manner;
• Failed to allocate a social worker to support him with his social interaction and communication needs;
• Unreasonably required him to contribute towards the cost of the support he needs, which he says he cannot afford;
• Unreasonably refused his applications for the Household Support Fund; and
• Failed to make reasonable adjustments for him.
2. Mr B says the Council’s failings have left him without sufficient support and have significantly affected his mental health.

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 recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
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 cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, 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 explained in paragraph four, we cannot normally investigate a matter that a complainant has been aware of for more than 12 months. Mr B complained to us in July 2025, so we would normally only investigate matters that he became aware of between July 2024 and July 2025. However, I have decided to exercise discretion to investigate whether the Council failed to properly deal with his earlier requests for a care needs assessment. This is because I consider there are good reasons why Mr B did not complain to us sooner.
8. I have decided to investigate Mr B’s complaints about the support offered following the completion of his needs assessment in August 2025. While this happened after Mr B complained to us, I have decided to include it because it is closely connected to other matters I am investigating.
9. Mr B has raised a number of further complaints with the Council about matters which have arisen since July 2025. I have not considered those matters as part of this investigation because they are separate issues which arose after Mr B brought his complaint to us.
10. Mr B has also made several complaints about matters involving the tenancy sustainment team. I have not considered those complaints for the reasons explained in paragraph five of this statement. The actions of the tenancy sustainment team relate to the management of social housing. Mr B may wish to make a complaint about these matters to the Housing Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Mr B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. Mr B and the Council have 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 government guidance

Care and support needs assessment

13. 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.
14. Councils must carry out assessments over a suitable and reasonable timescale considering the urgency of needs and any variation in those needs. Councils should tell people when their assessment will take place and keep them informed throughout the assessment.

Care and support plan

15. The Care Act 2014 gives councils a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan. 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. 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.

Charging

16. 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)
17. Where a council has decided to charge for care, it must carry out a financial assessment to decide what a person can afford to pay. It must then give the person a written record of the completed assessment. A council must not charge more than the cost it incurs to meet a person’s assessed eligible needs.
18. People receiving care and support other than in a care home need to keep a certain level of income to cover their living costs. Councils’ financial assessments can take a person’s income and capital into consideration, but not the value of their home. After charging, a person’s income must not reduce below a weekly amount known as the minimum income guarantee (MIG). This is set by national government and reviewed each year. A council can allow people to keep more than the MIG. (Care Act 2014)

Reasonable adjustments

19. Under the Equality Act 2010, councils must make “reasonable adjustments” if the way it carries out its functions places a disabled person at a “substantial disadvantage” compared to someone who does not have a disability.

Key events and analysis

Requests for social care needs assessments

20. During the complaints process, Mr B specifically complained that the Council had failed to deal with referrals made by his support worker in 2023 for a social care needs assessment. The Council did not address this issue in its response to his complaint. As a result, Mr B was left without an explanation, which caused him avoidable frustration.
21. Mr B has provided evidence which appears to show that a support worker referred him to Adult Social Care for an assessment in August 2023 and that they had contact with the Council about the referral in October 2023. However, the Council has no record of receiving or considering that referral. On balance, I consider it likely that a referral was made.
22. Councils should keep adequate records of referrals they receive and the action taken in response to them. I am not satisfied that the Council did so in this case. This is fault. As there is no record of the referral, it is not possible to establish whether the referral was properly considered or whether appropriate action was taken.
23. The first referral recorded by the Council is dated 1 December 2023, when Mr B's tenancy sustainment officer contacted Adult Social Care. The Council responded by explaining it needed more information about the support Mr B required before deciding how to proceed. It also explained that, if it arranged care, Mr B might have to contribute towards the cost. The Council asked the tenancy sustainment officer to provide the additional information and confirm Mr B consented to an assessment. It also suggested a referral to mental health services if Mr B required support with his mental health.
24. The Council’s records do not show that the requested information was provided. I have found no evidence of fault with the way the Council dealt with this referral.
25. Mr B made a further request for a care needs assessment in October 2024. The Council contacted him and agreed to send written information explaining the support Adult Social Care could provide. The records show it was agreed that Mr B would contact the Council again if, after considering that information, he wished to proceed with an assessment. The Council's records do not show that Mr B contacted Adult Social Care again to request an assessment after receiving that information. I have found no evidence of fault here.
26. Mr B's Community Psychiatric Nurse made a further referral in March 2025. The Council triaged the referral in May 2025 and decided to carry out a needs assessment.
27. Once the Council had decided to carry out an assessment, there was avoidable delay before it completed the assessment in August 2025. This was fault. The Council has acknowledged this delay and apologised for it.

Advocacy

28. Under the Care Act 2014, councils must arrange an independent advocate for a person taking part in a care needs assessment where the person would otherwise have substantial difficulty being fully involved in the process and there is no appropriate individual available to support and represent them.
29. The records show that, while arranging the needs assessment, the Council told Mr B that it was arranging an advocate to support him. In later discussions about his complaint, Mr B told the Council he did not want an advocate and had never requested one.
30. The evidence does not show that Mr B asked the Council to provide an independent advocate and that it refused to do so. I am satisfied that the Council properly considered whether advocacy was required. I have found no fault by the Council here.

Conduct of social worker

31. Mr B complained that a social worker behaved in a rude and unprofessional manner when answering his telephone call. The social worker explained he was in a meeting and needed to end the call. I have not listened to a recording of the call, so I cannot reach a finding on what was said.
32. When Mr B complained to the Council, it investigated the incident, interviewed the social worker, reviewed the case records and decided to allocate a different social worker to complete his care needs assessment. I am satisfied that the Council took reasonable steps to consider Mr B’s concerns and responded appropriately. I have found no evidence of fault by the Council here.

Meeting eligible needs

33. The Council completed Mr B's care needs assessment in August 2025. The assessment identified that he had eligible needs relating to managing and maintaining nutrition, maintaining a habitable home environment, developing and maintaining family or other personal relationships, and making use of necessary facilities and services in the local community.
34. It recorded that Mr B did not want support with cleaning, shopping, meals and laundry because friends and family were already helping him with these tasks. It was agreed that Mr B would consider employing a Personal Assistant through a direct payment, and he was provided with details of a service which provides Personal Assistants for people with Autism. Mr B also agreed for a referral to be made to the Targeted Support Worker service for support with social engagement, budgeting and administrative tasks. The social worker told Mr B she would contact him once a support worker had been allocated to help him engage with the service.
35. Following the assessment, Mr B contacted the social worker and asked how much he would need to pay towards the cost of a Personal Assistant. The social worker made a referral for a financial assessment and a referral to the Targeted Support Worker service. She told Mr B that he would be contacted directly once a support worker was allocated and when the financial assessment had been completed. She said that no further social work actions were required and so she had closed his case.
36. The Targeted Support Worker service referred Mr B to Thames Reach for floating support. Mr B chose not to engage with Thames Reach because of concerns arising from a previous data breach involving the organisation. He also considered the referral unsuitable because he believed it would only provide short-term support. Thames Reach closed Mr B’s case in October 2025.
37. The social worker did not contact Mr B once the Thames Reach support worker had been allocated, despite offering to do so. She clearly recognised that he may need support to engage with the service, but then did not provide it. This was fault.
38. Mr B decided not to employ a Personal Assistant after the financial assessment determined how much he should pay towards the cost, which he considered unaffordable.
39. Mr B considers the Council should have allocated him a named social worker to provide ongoing support with his social interaction and communication needs. However, it is not the role of the social worker to provide the type of day-to-day support Mr B has been identified as needing. The Council was entitled to decide that those needs could be met through other arrangements, such as support from a Personal Assistant or another commissioned service. I have found no fault in the way the Council decided not to allocate a social worker to provide that support.
40. Following a care needs assessment, councils are required to prepare a care and support plan setting out the person's eligible needs, how those needs will be met, the support available and the personal budget available to meet those needs. The Council did not prepare a care and support plan for Mr B. This was fault.
41. Councils should consider carrying out a light-touch review of the plan six to eight weeks later, to ensure there are no initial issues. Had the Council prepared a care and support plan, and carried out a light touch review, it would have been aware that Mr B had not engaged with Thames Reach and that he was not proceeding with a Personal Assistant because he considered it unaffordable.
42. The Council should have spoken to Mr B about why the proposed arrangements had not been successful and considered whether there were alternative ways of meeting his eligible needs. The Council also should have explored with Mr B why he considered the assessed contribution was unaffordable and whether his circumstances justified a request for all or part of the charge to be waived, particularly considering it was aware that Mr B needed support with budgeting.
43. The Council’s failure to prepare a care and support plan, and to review its effectiveness, has left Mr B with uncertainty about whether further support could have been identified and whether his assessed needs could have been met in a way that was acceptable and affordable to him. He has also been left without the benefit of annual reviews to check the support plan was working.

Household support fund

44. The evidence shows the Council awarded £783.24 to Mr B from the Household Support Fund to clear an outstanding utility bill in July 2024.
45. A later application was refused because Mr B did not have a repayment arrangement in place with the utility provider. The evidence shows that Mr B was offered support to put a payment plan in place, but it did not proceed because Mr B felt unable to work with his tenancy sustainment officer. I have not investigated the actions of the tenancy sustainment team for the reasons explained in paragraphs five and ten.
46. The Household Support Fund is intended to provide short-term financial assistance rather than ongoing support. The Council considered the application against its criteria and reached a decision it was entitled to make. I have found no fault in the way the Council decided to refuse Mr B’s application.

Reasonable adjustments

47. Under the Equality Act 2010, public bodies must take reasonable steps to avoid placing disabled people at a substantial disadvantage when accessing their services. Councils are not required to agree to all requested adjustments. The duty is to make adjustments if it considers the way it carries out its functions places a disabled person at a “substantial disadvantage” and if it considers the adjustment is “reasonable”.
48. Since September 2025, Mr B has made a number of specific requests for adjustments. However, I have not considered them because they were made after the period covered by this investigation. I have also not considered the requests Mr B has made to the housing sustainment team for the reasons explained in paragraphs five and ten.
49. During the period I have investigated, I have seen no evidence that the Council failed to consider any adjustment it knew, or ought reasonably to have known, was required. I have found no evidence of fault here.

Back to top

Action

50. The Council has agreed to take the following actions within four weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise and make a payment of £200 to Mr B for failing to prepare a care and support plan following his care needs assessment and failing to review whether the arrangements identified were meeting his eligible needs. 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 when making the apology.
51. The Council has also agreed to take the following actions within eight weeks of my final decision:
• Carry out a review of Mr B’s needs and complete a care and support plan, ensuring his views about the suitability of available support and his concerns about affordability are considered.
• Carry out a full financial assessment of Mr B’s income and expenses to ascertain how much Mr B can reasonably afford to contribute to the cost of any care arranged. If the Council concludes that Mr B cannot afford to contribute, it should consider whether to waive all or part of the charge, in accordance with its charging policy.
• Review its processes and remind staff that care and support plans should be completed as required by the Care Act 2014.
52. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

53. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr B. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman