Summary: Ms B complained that the Council failed to properly consider her request for a social care assessment, inform her of its decision or provide a befriending service. We found the Council did properly consider her request for an assessment but failed to notify Miss B in writing of the decision and the reasons for it. It has also delayed in finding a befriending service for her. The Council has agreed to apologise, and make a symbolic payment.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained that Westminster City Council (the Council) failed to properly consider her request for a social care assessment in June 2025 or inform her in writing of its decision. It also failed to contact her Mental Health Outreach Support Worker regarding a befriending service or to reconsider her care needs as it agreed to do in its complaint response in September 2025. Ms B says she has been caused distress and uncertainty by these failings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
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 Ms B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms B 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

Assessment

7. 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.
8. 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

What happened

9. Ms B has health conditions and requires some support. Up until April 2025 she had a care package which latterly involved a 30-minute call per week. The Council said Ms B was not consistently engaging with the service, so it ended on 16 April 2025.
10. Prior to this in November 2024 the Council had referred Ms B to the Mental Health Outreach Service (MHOS) who allocated an outreach worker (OW) to work with Ms B. Over the next few months OW worked intensively with Ms B:
• reducing her social isolation and encouraging meaningful social contact;
• establishing daily and weekly structure through community activities and courses; and
• assisting with benefits- and housing-related administrative tasks.
11. OW reported significant positive progress.
12. On 9 June 2025 MHOS asked the Council to reinstate the care package as Ms B was struggling with shopping and cleaning due to physical problems and age. It explained that MHOS was about to discharge Ms B from the service but had been unable to find a befriending service for her.
13. The Council said it contacted MHOS who advised that Ms B was maintaining her accommodation to a good standard, presenting with appropriate personal care and engaging well with the support provided. Based on this information it decided Ms B did not have any unmet needs and an assessment was not proportionate or necessary. It communicated the decision to MHOS not Ms B.
14. On 9 July Ms B made a formal complaint to the Council about the refusal to carry out an assessment. She said she was anxious that once OW discharged her she would be alone with no support. She asked for a social worker, a befriender and a care package.
15. She also complained to us later that month. We referred the complaint back to the Council to respond to first. OW discharged her at the beginning of September. MHOS were still trying to find her a befriending service.
16. The Council responded to her complaint on 11 September. It explained that as she had OW for support at the time of her complaint it considered her needs were being appropriately met. However, it recognised the failure to find a befriending service and said it would follow up on this issue with OW. In respect of her care needs it acknowledged that her needs might have changed since July but OW had reported an improvement in her health and confidence. It agreed for a social worker to make contact and review her care needs.
17. A social worker visited with Ms B’s health professional on 19 September and started an assessment. On 7 October it concluded she did have eligible care needs and recommended referral to a befriending service. A referral was made to an organisation that day.
18. Following a request from Ms B’s solicitor, the Council carried out a second assessment in early 2026, which resulted in one hour a week of domestic support and two hours a week of support to access the community and a befriending role to include social interaction and accompaniment to activities. Ms B then went into hospital for three weeks and so the service did not start until the end of April 2026.
19. In May 2026 Ms B was contacted by the befriending co-ordinator and she said as she was receiving a package of care which included a befriending element this was sufficient to meet her needs and she did not wish to pursue the referral further.

Findings

20. The Council initially considered Ms B’s request for support and decided her needs were met, based on the report from OW and MHOS. The Council decided Ms B did not have eligible needs as she was receiving support from an alternative source at that point. I find no fault in the way it made that decision.
21. The Council communicated its decision orally to MHOS as they had made the request. I consider it should have put the decision in writing to Miss B as there was no record of the reasoning and it is not clear whether or how Miss B was informed of the decision. This caused uncertainty and led to Ms B making a formal complaint.
22. In responding to the complaint, the Council recognised Ms B’s needs may have changed as she was no longer receiving support from MHOS and started a care needs assessment. It completed this promptly and made recommendations for a befriending service, which MHOS had been trying to arrange for some time. I have not found fault with this process and Ms B was receiving support from OW for most of the period up to the start of the assessment.
23. Despite making a referral promptly the befriending support was not in place until the end of April 2026, even accounting for the hospital stay Ms B was without support for six months. This is fault which has caused Ms B distress.

Back to top

Action

24. In recognition of the injustice caused to Ms B, I recommended the Council, within one month of the date of my final decision:
• apologises to Ms B and makes a symbolic payment to her of £100.
25. The Council has agreed to my recommendation and should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman