Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to provide overnight respite care to her son. We found fault due to poor transition planning which meant Ms X’s son did not receive overnight respite care for an extended period causing them both distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and review its transition processes between children’s and adult’s services in addition to the improvements it has already made to its respite referral process.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to provide overnight respite care to her son, W, from April 2024 to October 2025. Ms X says this had a harmful impact on her son’s behaviour and her own health and wellbeing.

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. 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)
3. 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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. 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

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

8. The following is a summary of key events. It does not include everything that happened.
9. W lived at home with Ms X with the support of a care package with 3:1 care and regular overnight respite at a particular placement. W had been attending the same respite placement for many years. This respite placement was due to end in April 2024 when W turned 18 years old.
10. Ms X had an accident in January 2024 and was unable to care for W during her recovery. The option was explored of having care provided to W at home by his usual carers but on a 24 hour basis. However, Ms X declined this option as the house was too small and it would not be in W’s best interests to be in an overcrowded house as his care was 3:1. Therefore, it was arranged for W to stay at his familiar respite placement during her recovery.
11. A planning meeting held in February 2024 noted W would turn 18 years old in early April and there needed to be a transition plan for a post 18 placement. A review meeting in March 2024 noted Ms X wanted W to be home for his 18th birthday and the current plan was for him to return home on 5 April 2024. It was noted that this would need to be planned carefully and the placements team were looking into a potential adults placement. There were two potential services that could offer respite support.
12. After W returned home in April 2024 it was noted that one provider had stated it could not meet W’s needs for respite and updates were being sought from other potential providers.
13. Ms X contacted the Council in June 2024 for an update. The Council provided an update to Ms X in mid-July 2024 that a particular provider was making capacity and W may be able to attend in a few weeks. Ms X highlighted she had missed several important life events due to the lack of respite provision for W.
14. The Council produced a transition plan for W in mid-August 2024. It was agreed to plan two visits with W to the proposed respite provider over lunch and tea times and then an overnight stay if it could meet his needs.
15. The Council facilitated staff training with the proposed respite provider towards the end of September 2024.
16. Ms X visited the proposed respite provider in early October 2024. The following visits then took place:

• 23 October 2024 W visited with his carers
• 28 October lunchtime visit did not go ahead due to W’s carers being unable to provide support on that date
• 4 November 2024 W visited for an afternoon.
• 30 November 2024 W visited which was recorded as being a positive visit although he showed signs of agitation
• 3 and 23 December 2024 visits were cancelled with the reasons not recorded
• 19 February 2025 W visited late morning and showed signs of agitation and expressed wish to leave by 1pm and had thrown a keyboard across a room when trying to engage in an activity
• 8 March 2025 W visited for an hour and appeared fine during the visit
• 22 March 2025 W visited and an incident report stated he was throwing tables, entered all rooms, had thrown glasses and attempted to punch and headbutt two staff members and the visit was cut short
• 2 April 2025 first overnight stay by W with incident reports about violence and aggression to staff, throwing objects and entering other service user’s rooms

17. The provider advised the Council in early May 2025 that it could not meet W’s needs. The Council informed Ms X of this outcome and that it was looking into alternative options. This included providing respite at home using W’s usual care provider which Ms X confirmed was not suitable. The Council was also exploring another potential respite placement at the college W attended.
18. Ms X advised the Council in early June that W, who was non-verbal, was signing he wanted to go to respite and was violent towards her when she told him this was not possible.
19. Ms X sought respite in June 2025 for specific dates in August 2025 to allow her to attend a friend’s birthday weekend.
20. The Council provided a detailed breakdown to Ms X at the end of July 2025 about the various respite options that had been explored albeit unsuccessfully. The Council offered 24 hour care at home for the days in August 2025 so Ms X could attend her planned short break with friends. Ms X confirmed she did not want respite at home for W. Ms X was unable to attend her planned short break which had cost £195. The Council subsequently agreed a one-off payment of £250 to be added to Ms X’s carer’s budget. The Council made a lump sum payment of £1,070 in December 2025 that included the agreed £250 with Ms X’s assessed annual budget for gardening support of £820.
21. The Council discussed respite with Ms X in mid-September 2025 and she raised concern about W going to a new respite provider instead of an established one. The Council explained there was no established respite provider in the area who could take W and so it was having to consider setting up something bespoke for him which would be new to him and a solo respite offer. 
22. The Council completed a carers assessment with Ms X in early October 2025. This had been previously offered to Ms X but she had not felt able to engage with this earlier. This recommended a gardening service for Ms X and £250 each year to promote her wellbeing through taking part in activities on a short break with friends and family while W was in respite.
23. The Council discussed respite with Ms X in mid-October 2025 and she confirmed she did not want W to use a proposed provider due to historical allegations. The Council explained there had been a change of management and staff at the provider and it remained the only potential respite available and needed to be considered.
24. W had a Mental Health Act assessment towards the end of October and was admitted for treatment to a secure hospital setting.
25. In its complaint correspondence with Ms X, the Council accepted the delay in providing an overnight respite stay for W between a referral in August 2024 and April 2025 was unacceptable. The Council noted it should have planned the visits much closer together to ascertain if the provider could meet W’s needs.
26. The Council noted that if the initial visits had been closer together this would have improved the experience for W in terms of becoming familiar with the service and allowed a quicker decision to be made about the suitability of the setting for him. This meant time was lost to explore other respite options and also that Ms X did not receive a much needed break. The Council also accepted that details of incidents during visits should have been shared more openly with Ms X and W’s social worker and that contradictory information was provided which gave the impression W’s transition was progressing well when it was not. In particular, Ms X should have been told that the number of day visits was extended before an overnight stay due to concern about potential risks identified from the earlier visits. The Council questioned whether an overnight stay should have been tried at all in these circumstances. The Council also accepted the decision that the provider could not meet W’s needs for overnight respite was poorly communicated to Ms X. The Council provided an apology for the unusually poor level of service received and set out changes it had made to the process for dealing with respite referrals. The Council also passed on an apology from the respite provider.

My consideration

27. The Care Act requires that there is no gap in services between children’s and adult’s provision. The Council’s delay in starting the transition planning, meant that it started searching for adult respite too late. This is fault.
28. There was a period from April 2024 to October 2025 when W received just one overnight respite stay.
29. The Council has provided evidence of its subsequent efforts to identify a suitable placement but the respite care providers could not meet W’s needs or did not have any availability. It is possible that even if the Council had started transition planning in a more timely manner, it would not have been able to arrange overnight respite care. However, this remains service failure by the Council as none of its actions resulted in overnight respite care for W. It also meant Mrs X did not have respite from caring for her son.
30. It is clear from the evidence provided, that this caused both Ms X and W significant distress and uncertainty over an extended period. There was also a clear risk of harm to both Ms X and W from the loss of service during this period. This injustice requires a remedy in addition to the service improvements the Council has already implemented in its respite process. I have taken into account the length of the period of the loss of service and the vulnerability of those involved in making my recommendation below.

Back to top

Action

31. The Council will take the following action within one month of my final decision:
1. write to Ms X to apologise for the poor transition planning and communication in relation to W’s overnight respite care; and
2. pay Ms X £1,500 to acknowledge the risk of harm and impact from the loss of service between April 2024 and October 2025 and her avoidable distress and uncertainty.
32. The Council should also review its processes to ensure there is timely transition planning and joined up working when transferring care provision between its children’s and adult’s services within three months of my final decision.
33. 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.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman