Summary: Mr X complained that the Council had not arranged an advocate for him when he needed this to take part in an assessment of his care and support needs, and took too long to complete a reassessment and reinstate his support. The Council has acknowledged that it was at fault and that Mr X missed out on support that he would have been entitled to. The Council has made several improvements to its services based on its learning from Mr X’s complaint. It will also apologise to Mr X and make a symbolic payment to him in recognition of the impact on him of the missed services.

The complaint

1. Mr X’s advocate complains on his behalf that the Council:
• Failed to arrange an advocate when Mr X needed support to complete an assessment of his care and support needs; and
• Took too long to complete a reassessment of Mr X’s care needs.
2. Mr X says that as a result of this he missed out on support for a long time, he was not able to access the community, and he had to rely on support from his extended family, which itself is a complex situation.

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 suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(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)

What I have and have not investigated

5. 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)
6. Mr X complains about events from March 2024. His advocate was involved from May 2024, but did not complain to the Ombudsman until December 2025. Mr X’s complaint was late, but I have exercised discretion to investigate it. This is because Mr X is vulnerable and finds communication difficult, and so it is likely that it would take an advocate longer to ascertain his wishes. Also, in this case, the Council told Mr X and his advocate that it would reassess his care needs as soon as possible. So it was unreasonable to expect Mr X to complain while he was waiting for this to happen.
7. While waiting for a reassessment, Mr X made a further complaint asking why his support had been stopped in the first place. His advocate says this complaint was not properly addressed.
8. I have not investigated why Mr X’s support stopped in 2023. This is because Mr X could have complained about that sooner. He did not complain to the Council until late 2024 and to the Ombudsman until 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mr X’s advocate and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mr 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

The law and guidance

11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Chapter 7 of the Care and Support Guidance deals with using independent advocates.
14. Councils must consider the need for an independent advocate when carrying out a care needs assessment, care and support planning and reviews. This is because the guidance says that the person must be actively involved in assessments, reviews, and care planning.
15. Councils must arrange for an independent advocate if the person:
• Would have substantial difficulty in being fully involved in the assessment without support in understanding, retaining, or weighing up the information provided, or in communicating their views, wishes and feelings; and
• There is no support available.
16. Councils have a duty under the Equality Act to make reasonable adjustments to ensure that disabled people have equal access to services.

What happened

17. Mr X is disabled. He has both learning and developmental disabilities, as well as a significant physical health need. Mr X lives at home with his family and is cared for by his mother. His sister also has significant care needs.
18. In 2022, the Council assessed Mr X’s needs and decided that he needed support in keeping himself well and to access the community. It arranged for 18 hours of support per week over three days. At that time, Mr X was awaiting a serious operation. In 2023, after his operation, the Council stopped Mr X’s support.
19. In March 2024, the Council assessed Mr X’s care and support needs. Mr X’s advocate said that Mr X had wanted an advocate to help him understand the information. Mr X’s mother was at the assessment but English is not her first language and without an interpreter she was unable to fully understand the assessment questions.
20. Mr X says he asked a number of times for the Council to contact a specific organisation to help him. The Council says that it offered him an advocate but he refused this.
21. The Council completed the assessment and decided that Mr X did not have support needs because his family could support him. Mr X says that this is not right because his sister is ill and has support needs of her own, and his mother, who is elderly, cannot manage to support them both.
22. Mr X says that this has meant that he cannot go out as he once would, as he does not have a support worker to help him.
23. In May 2024, Mr X’s advocate requested a fresh assessment. The advocate contacted the Council a number of times to progress the reassessment. The Council acknowledged the advocate’s contact. It told her that someone from the Learning Disability Team would contact her.
24. By the end of August, the Council had not arranged a fresh assessment and so Mr X’s advocate complained to the Council on his behalf.
25. The Council’s complaints policy says that it will decide stage one complaints within 20 working days.
26. The Council called the advocate at the end of September. It apologised that it had not been able to deal with the complaint nor arrange a reassessment for Mr X yet.
27. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at the beginning of October 2024. It said:
• It offered Mr X’s mother an interpreter but she had said that her daughter could do this instead. The Council acknowledged that Mr X did not find this appropriate but it was respecting his mother’s wishes.
• Mr X had not at any point asked for any advocacy support but it acknowledged that he should have had access to an advocate for the assessment.
• The Council has been unable to arrange a reassessment because it does not have the capacity.
• In March, Mr X had agreed that he could leave messages for the Learning Disability Team, and it will call him once a week to respond. This was to manage the significant volume of calls Mr X was making to the team.
• The Council said it was sorry that Mr X feels he had been let down by it.
• It hopes to allocate a social worker within the next four to six weeks, who will then arrange a reassessment. The Council will arrange for Mr X’s independent advocate to attend along with an interpreter for his mother.
28. The Council reassessed Mr X’s care and support needs in February 2025. It found that he needed 15 hours of support over three days to keep himself well and help him access the community.
29. Mr X’s support package started at the beginning of July 2025.
30. In December 2025, Mr X’s advocate complained to the Ombudsman on his behalf.
31. In response to our investigation, the Council reviewed Mr X’s case. It acknowledged that it was at fault. The Council told us:
• Mr X had substantial difficulty engaging with the assessment process in March 2024 and it failed to arrange an independent advocate in line with the law and guidance.
• It has reviewed the information it had about Mr X’s support needs before and after the March 2024 assessment. Based on this information, the Council’s decision that Mr X was not eligible for support was flawed and it did not sufficiently consider the impact of his disabilities and health.
• The Council reassessed Mr X’s care needs in February 2025, but did not reinstate his support package until July. It said this delay prolonged a period without essential support.
• Its complaint respond did not fully acknowledge the impact on Mr X of its shortcomings, nor fully take responsibility for what had happened. It said that its failings meant that for a significant period, Mr X was caused distress. He could not access the community, and had to rely on his family when this was not appropriate due to the complex home environment.
32. The Council offered to apologise to Mr X and pay him £1,500 in recognition of the distress it had caused him and the lack of support he had suffered; and a further £200 in recognition of the time and trouble he had been caused having to pursue his complaint.
33. The Council has made these service improvements as a result of Mr X’s complaint:
• It will check whether a person needs advocacy at the start of any care assessment and record this on the file.
• All decisions about eligibility, especially those that result in withdrawal or reduction of support must be reviewed within the Council to make sure the decision is evidence-based and person-centred, as well as compliant with the law and government guidance.
• It has a policy for social work where a person has been waiting longer than expected for an assessment, it will contact them regularly and provide information and support to reduce risks and maintain wellbeing until an assessment can be done. The Council has now extended this process to the Learning Disability Team and will monitor its implementation. It will support this with monthly reviews of waiting times by senior officers, so that the Council can identify bottlenecks and escalate cases at risk of excessive delay.
• It will complete additional training for staff dealing with complaints to make sure it responds in good time, empathetically, and in a person-centred way. It will make sure it addresses the issues properly, identify where it can learn from the complaint, and provide clear outcomes and explanations.
• The improvements are part of a broader improvement plan which it monitors and reviews quarterly at a senior level.

Analysis

34. The Council has acknowledged that it was at fault as set out above. This meant that Mr X missed out on care and support that he would have most likely be entitled to had the Council acted without fault.
35. When we have evidence of fault causing injustice we will seek a remedy for that injustice which aims to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in if nothing had gone wrong. When this is not possible, we will normally consider asking for a symbolic payment to acknowledge the avoidable distress caused.
36. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way that a court might. Nor do we calculate a financial remedy based on what the cost of the service would have been to the provider. This is because it is not possible to now provide the services missed out on.
37. The Council’s proposed remedy of an apology, symbolic payments, and improvements to its services, is a proportionate way to resolve this complaint, and is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance.

Back to top

Action

38. The Council will within one month of the date of this decision:
• Apologise to Mr X. 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 I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay to Mr X a symbolic payment of £1500 in recognition of the impact on him of the missed care and support over a prolonged period.
• Pay to Mr X a symbolic payment of £200 in recognition of the additional time and trouble he was put to pursuing the issues.
39. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman