Summary: We have found that there was a delay in the appointment of a care worker and delays in the carer’s payment and the completion of a CHC checklist. We have not found fault regarding the safeguarding enquiry minutes nor the request for a backdated payment. The delays have caused distress and the Council has apologised and agreed to pay a symbolic sum.

The complaint

1. Miss C complains on behalf of her adult son, Mr D who lacks the mental capacity to make the complaint. She complains about a delay in the appointment of a care worker for Mr D and in the carer’s payment. She says the Council should not have started a safeguarding enquiry and there are errors in the Council’s minutes of the safeguarding minutes. Miss C also disagrees with the Council’s backdated request for payment of charges.

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 recommend 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 considered evidence provided by Miss C and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Miss C 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

6. The Care Act 2014, the Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014 and the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 set out the Council’s duties towards adults who require care and support and its powers to charge. The Council also has its own policies.
7. 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.

Financial assessment

8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.

Disability Related Expenditure

11. Councils can take disability-related benefit into account when calculating how much someone should pay towards the cost of their care. When doing so, a council should make an assessment to allow the person to keep enough benefit to pay for necessary disability-related expenditure (DRE) to meet any needs it is not meeting.

Council’s financial policy

12. The Council’s financial policy says:
• The Finance and Benefits Assessment Team will backdate the outcome of assessments if they are not informed that a person received extra income or their capital increased.

CHC checklist

13. CHC is a package of ongoing care that is arranged and funded by the NHS where a person has been assessed as having a ‘primary health need’. For most people who may be eligible for CHC, the first step in assessment is for a health or social care professional to complete a CHC Checklist.

Safeguarding

14. A council must make enquiries if it thinks a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has care and support needs which mean the person cannot protect themselves. An enquiry is the action taken by a council in response to a concern about abuse or neglect. An enquiry could range from a conversation with the person who is the subject of the concern, to a more formal multi-agency arrangement. (section 42, Care Act 2014)

What happened

15. Mr D is an adult man who lives with Miss C. Mr D’s father lives nearby. Mr D has a severe learning disability, a neurodevelopmental condition and mental health diagnoses. Mr D’s parents provide support and Mr D also receives a care package funded by the Council of 60 hours support from two support workers.
16. One support worker was self-employed and the other support worker’s employment was organised via a charity which supports people who receive direct payments.
17. The Council sent a letter to Mr D on 23 November 2022 which said that Mr D’s contribution to the cost of his care package was nil. The letter said the following.
• ‘The financial assessment is based on your current circumstances. Please contact us immediately if you circumstances change, for example; if you are awarded additional benefits or there are any changes to the benefits you received.’
• Any changes may affect the amount you have to pay towards your care and support services.’
• As you would expect, if you delay telling us about a change and pay an incorrect contribution for your care, any increased charges you need to pay may be backdated.’
• The letter included Mr D’s financial assessment which set out what income he received.
18. Mr D started to receive an additional benefit income on 12 December 2022.
19. The Council reviewed Mr D’s financial assessment on a yearly basis and sent letters to Mr D on 3 April 2023, 4 April 2024 and 27 March 2025 stating that his contribution continued to be nil.
20. The social worker carried out a review of Miss C’s carer’s assessment on 8 May 2025. Miss C emailed the social worker on the same day and said:
• The social worker had told her that she should add ‘that I have mental health problems and you said I am at risk and I should highlight this on the form, even though I don’t have mental health issues.’
• The social worker said they could submit a CHC checklist for Mr D but the social worker thought that Mr D would not be entitled to CHC which was ‘deflating.’
21. In May 2025 one of Mr D’s support workers stopped working as Mr D’s care worker.
22. Miss C emailed the social worker on 18 June 2025 as she had found a new support worker for Mr D and wanted them to start as soon as possible.
23. The social worker started a core assessment of Mr D on 19 June 2025. The assessment noted that a care plan to 60 hours support (two support workers providing 30 hours) had been agreed.
24. Miss C emailed the social worker on 19 June 2025 asking why the Council had not responded to her request to allow another person to start providing support. Mr D was entitled to 60 hours support but he was not receiving this because of the delay in appointing another person. Miss C also chased the CHC checklist.
25. The social worker sent a email to Miss C on 27 June 2025. He enclosed a blank CHC checklist and guidance on CHC checklists. He asked Miss C to fill in the checklist and said: ‘I will also make a start on the levels I think apply for each domain and we can meet (via MS Teams) to go through the checklist together. Please let me know when you are ready to meet and I can send the Team meeting invitation.’
26. On 18 July the Council confirmed that 60 hours a week had been agreed and that the proposed new support worker was already registered with the charity so they could start supporting Mr D.
27. The Council had received two safeguarding referrals raising concerns about Mr D. The Council started two safeguarding enquiries and put the complaint response on hold because of the safeguarding enquiries. Council officers visited Mr D’s home, met Mr D, and had a meeting with his parents at the home, as part of the enquiry.
28. The Council held a safeguarding meeting regarding Mr D on 22 July 2025 and Ms C attended the meeting. The minutes of the meeting were sent out to the attendants. Ms C provided amendments to the minutes and these were added as a post-meeting addendum and circulated on 4 August 2025.
29. Miss C’s carer’s assessment was completed on 30 July 2025 and the Council agreed on 12 August 2025 to pay £300 to Miss C. The assessment included a heading called ‘relevant details of your mental health and any effect of your caring role on this’ which the social worker left blank.
30. Another safeguarding meeting was held on 27 August 2025. It was agreed at that meeting that the safeguarding enquiries would be closed once the Council had received confirmation on one issue from the police. No further safeguarding meetings were held.
31. The Council circulated the minutes of the meeting of 27 August 2025. Ms C asked for an amendment to the minutes and the final minutes were sent on 5 September 2025.
32. The Council responded to Miss C’s complaints she made between May and July 2025 on 5 September 2025 after the safeguarding enquiries had been closed. The Council said:
• The social worker did not instruct Miss C to say she had mental health issues. However, there was a general recognition that being a family carer adds stress and pressure to the carer and has an impact on a carer’s wellbeing.
• The Council upheld the complaint that there was a delay in the carer’s assessment and in the payment. The Council agreed the assessment and payment in principle in May 2025. The payment was authorised in August 2025 and paid in September 2025. The Council agreed to pay Miss C £100 in recognition of the delay.
• The Council acknowledged that the care plan which said that 60 hours were provided by two care workers may have been too prescriptive. A less prescriptive care plan would have made it easier to replace the care worker who left.
• The attendants at the safeguarding meetings had the opportunity to comment on the accuracy of the minutes. Miss C had suggested amendments to the minutes of the safeguarding meetings and amendments had been made. The Council had now closed the safeguarding enquiries and was not planning to make any further amendments to the minutes.
33. On 9 September 2025 Miss C said she still disagreed with the minutes of the safeguarding meetings and wanted changes to be made.
34. The Council’s finance team wrote to Mr D on 8 October 2025 and said:
• It had noted that Mr D had received extra benefits from 12 December 2022, but the Council had not been informed of this change. This meant there was an increase in Mr D’s contribution which the Council could backdate to 12 December 2022.
• However, the Council had decided to exercise discretion in Mr D’s favour and only backdate the charge to 8 April 2024.
• The assessment was based on the standard allowance of DRE. Mr D could request a review of the DRE if the standard allowance did not cover his DRE. The letter included DRE guidance and explained what evidence to provide.
35. Miss C complained on 14 October 2025 and appealed the financial decision. Miss C said:
• The Council did not consult her nor notify her before it made the decision to charge Mr D.
• The Council’s decision to backdate the charges was not lawful as Mr D had not been notified, had no opportunity to dispute the charges and had not been assessed at the time.
• The Council had not completed a CHC checklist for Mr D and the Council proceeded on the basis that Mr D’s care costs were chargeable.
36. The social worker emailed Miss C on 17 November 2025 and said he planned to complete the CHC checklist at the same time as he carried out the 6-week review of the care plan after the new care worker had started. The social worker asked Miss C to confirm what the care worker’s start date was.
37. The Council responded to Miss C’s appeal and complaint on 4 December 2025 and said:
• Miss C did not inform the Council of the increase in Mr D’s benefits in 2022 so that is why she was not informed at the time that charges applied. The Council was entitled to ask for a backdated payment as set out in its policy and letters to Mr D.
• In terms of Miss C’s involvement in the financial assessment, the Council said it included a DRE form with the letter dated 8 October 2025 so, if Miss C had evidence that Mr D had DRE above the standard allowance of £33.46, she should submit this and the Council would review the financial assessment.
• The social worker provided Miss C with a CHC checklist with the expectation that she reviews it. The intention was to collaborate with Miss C to complete the checklist jointly. This task had not been completed but there was no barrier in Miss C completing the CHC checklist and sending it to the Council.
38. Miss C complained on 4 December 2025 and said:
• The Council had not carried out a full financial assessment and the DRE had not been assessed before it made the decision to charge Mr D and backdate the charges so this was not compliant with the Care Act 2014.
• The Council had said Miss C could complete and submit the CHC checklist. That was factually incorrect as only trained practitioners could complete CHC checklists.
39. The Council responded on 8 January 2026 and said:
• It repeated the reasons previously provided about the backdated payment and explained that it was the Council’s policy to pause any debt recovery while an appeal or complaint is being reviewed.
• It apologised for providing incorrect information about the CHC checklist in its complaint response dated 4 December 2025 and for the delay in completing the CHC checklist. Mr D now had a new social worker and they would contact Miss C to complete this as soon as possible.

Further information

40. The Council has provided the following information.
• The CHC checklist has now been completed.
• In its complaint response dated September 2025, the Council admitted that the care plan had been too prescriptive regarding the two care workers and this led to a delay in replacing one of the care workers. The Council offered a payment of £200 in recognition of this.
41. I asked Miss C what sentences in the safeguarding minutes she still disagreed with. Miss C said:
• Her statements regarding the hospital passport did not reflect accurately what she said. Miss C said that Mr D previously had a hospital passport but there were still problems at the hospital during three hospital admissions despite the passport so this is why she could not see the point of the passport. But the minutes said that that the failures during the three admissions showed the importance of the passport which was not what Miss C said.
• One of the Council officers told the meeting that Miss C had told her GP that the GP could only disclose minimal information about Mr D. Miss C said she never told the GP this.
42. The minutes dated 22 July 2025 said that a concern was raised regarding the absence of a hospital passport for Mr D. Miss C ‘acknowledged there had been difficulties during previous hospital visits’. Another attendant then said that this is why a hospital passport would be beneficial.
43. The minutes dated 22 July 2025 said a concern had been raised regarding the GP being asked to include minimal information about Mr D. Mr D’s parents said they were unaware of this request and Miss C said she would look into this.
44. The minutes also included two pages of corrections by Miss C. Miss C clarified that Mr D had a hospital passport previously but significant service failures still occurred. Miss C said she contacted the GP and the GP had no knowledge of the request to include minimal information.
45. Miss C raised the issue of the GP information at the next safeguarding meeting on 27 August 2025. The Council said that the note was on the GP’s record. The officer said they had seen the note which said: ‘The patient’s preference is for core items only to be included’. This was an electronic note. Miss C was advised to obtain the records from the GP to find out what the record said and to request a removal of the note.

Analysis

46. I have considered Miss C’s complaint that the social worker told her to say she had a mental health condition in her carer’s assessment. The word ‘mental health’ means the general mental health that every person has, just as everybody has ‘physical health’. Many things affect a person’s mental health every day and most people will experience some level of stress, for example, at some time in their lives.
47. However, this is different from having a mental health diagnosis or a mental illness which is a diagnosis of a mental health condition that can only be provided, generally speaking, by a psychiatrist.
48. The carer’s assessment has a heading called ‘relevant details of your mental health and any effect of your caring role on this’. Therefore I accept the social worker’s statement that he was asking Miss C what effect the caring role had on Miss C’s mental health, for example stress. That was a valid question the social worker had to ask. That was not the same as suggesting that Miss C had a diagnosed mental illness. So I find no fault in this respect.
49. Miss C complained that the Council delayed the provision of the full care package for Mr D. The Council has admitted that its original care plan was too prescriptive and this led to a delay when one of the care workers stopped working as Mr D’s care worker. This meant it took longer to appoint a new care worker so there was fault in that respect.
50. There was also a delay in the payment of £300 which was set out in Miss C’s care plan. The Council has upheld this complaint and I agree there was fault.
51. Miss C has also complained about the safeguarding enquiry. I find no fault in the Council’s decision to start a safeguarding enquiry. The Council considered the referrals that had been received and decided that these met the duty to start an enquiry. There is no fault in that respect. I appreciate that Miss C may query the referrals but the Council had a duty to investigate.
52. I note the Council carried out a visit to Mr D’s home and then held two safeguarding meetings to which the family was invited. The Council then decided that the risks raised by the referrals had been addressed and closed the enquiry. Miss C complained that there were a lot of mistakes in the safeguarding minutes. I note that the Council has placed Miss C’s corrections of the minutes with the minutes and I am of the view that this is an appropriate way forward.
53. I have looked into more detail into Miss C’s outstanding concerns about the minutes. In terms of the minutes regarding the hospital passport, the original minutes said that Miss C said that things went wrong at the hospital on 3 occasions. However, this did not reflect the full statement which was that Mr D already had a hospital passport when things went wrong. So I agree that the original minutes did not correctly reflect what Miss C had said at the meeting. I note that the correction provided by Miss C has now clarified this so the matter has been addressed.
54. In terms of the minutes regarding the alleged restriction on the GP to provide information, I agree that this is something that can only be rectified by Miss C obtaining the GP records and finding out what the records say and removing any restriction. The minutes of the safeguarding meeting only reflect what was said which was that the officer saw the restriction on the GP records and Miss C said she did not ask the GP to enter this restriction. There is nothing further the Ombudsman can add to this.
55. In terms of the complaints about the CHC checklist, the Council upheld Miss C’s complaint in its complaint response dated January 2026 and I agree there was fault. It does appear the matter has drifted somewhat. Miss C first asked for the CHC checklist in May 2025 and, on 27 June 2025 (after Miss C complaining about delay) the social worker asked Miss C for availability for a meeting. I cannot find Miss C’s response and it does not appear the Council took the matter any further.
56. Miss C raised the issue again in November 2025 and the social worker said the CHC checklist would be carried out during the six-week review, but, as far as I can see, the six-week review did not take place. The Council then said in its January 2026 complaint response that it would carry out the CHC checklist as soon as possible. So there was some delay overall.
57. I agree with Miss C that the CHC checklist can only be carried out by a health or social care professional. My reading of the social worker’s email dated 27 June 2025 was that Miss C and the social worker would go through the CHC checklist together in a meeting but first they would both fill in the CHC checklist to prepare for the meeting. There is no fault in that approach. However I think the complaint response dated 4 December 2025 could be misread to suggest Miss C could complete and submit the CHC checklist when this was not the case.
58. In terms of the Council’s request for Mr D to pay back some of the contribution he owes, I note the following. Miss C says she assumed that the Council would be informed about the increase of Mr D’s income so this is why she did not inform the Council of the increase when it happened.
59. The Council’s charging policy and all the Council’s letters to Mr D clearly set out that it is the duty of the recipient to inform the Council of any changes in income as soon as they occur and it also says clearly that the Council has the right to claim back any money it is owed if that has not happened. I therefore find no fault in that respect. And I also note that the Council has exercised discretion in Mr D’s favour by not asking for him to repay the money from 2022, but only from 8 April 2024.
60. Miss C says the Council had not carried out a financial assessment of Mr D so therefore the Council could not charge Mr D. The Council had carried out a financial assessment in 2022 and had reviewed it every year, but of course it did so based on the information it had received which was out of date. The Council carried out a fresh assessment in 2025 when it found out about the increase in Mr D’s income.
61. I note that the Council used the standard allowance of DRE in the financial assessment in line with its policy. That is an approach councils can take but residents should also be offered a chance of a full consideration of the DRE if the actual DRE is higher than the set amount.
62. I note in Mr D’s case that the Council offered Miss C the opportunity to provide further information on DRE if the DRE exceeded the standard allowance in its letter to Miss C of October 2025.
63. So I find no fault in this approach but it is on the understanding of the following:
• If Miss C had asked for a further assessment of Mr D’s DRE, the Council would have temporarily suspended the debt until the assessment was completed.
• If, as a result of the DRE assessment, Mr D’s contribution was lower, then the Council would have backdated this amount to 8 April 2024.
64. Miss C has not provided any DRE evidence to the Council but she continues to have the option to do so.

Injustice and remedy

65. I have found fault in the delay of in appointing the care worker and the carer’s payment and some delay and confusion regarding the CHC Checklist. These delays would have caused distress and difficulties to Mr D and also Miss C.
66. In a case such as this one, when there is no direct financial loss as a result of the fault, the Ombudsman can sometimes recommend a small symbolic payment to reflect the injustice. These payments are generally speaking a few hundred pounds. The Council has already offered £300 and I agree that this is an appropriate remedy for the fault. The Council has said it has already paid £200 and the Council has agreed to pay the remaining £100 within one month of the final decision.

Back to top

Action

67. The Council has already apologised to Miss C and paid her £200 for the faults I have identified.
68. The Council has agreed to pay £100 within 1 month of the final decision.
69. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman