Summary: We have ended our investigation into Mr X’s complaint that the Council delayed assessing Mr Y’s need for social care and issuing a care and support plan for him. This is because investigation would not result in a meaningful outcome. We will not consider the other issues Mr X complained about because either any fault did not cause a significant injustice or he has not yet complained to the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X is a professional representative working with Mr Y. Mr X complained the Council delayed assessing Mr Y’s needs for social care and creating and implementing a care and support plan for him. Mr X said that this meant the Council began paying for much of Mr Y’s care later than it should have done, which meant Mr Y had to pay the full cost of his care for a long period of time. Mr X said this had a negative financial impact on Mr Y and caused him significant confusion and distress.
2. Mr X also complained the Council had not shared records and evidence of its decision-making with Mr Y and that it had failed to safeguard him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Law and guidance

8. 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, to determine if they have eligible needs. The Care Act 2014 also gives councils a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan for someone with eligible needs. The care and support plan sets out how the council will meet those needs.
9. A council has a duty to arrange care and support for those with eligible needs. A council can choose to charge for non-residential care (this is care provided other than in a care or nursing home) 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)
10. 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 will ask for details of a person’s income and capital.
11. The Court of Protection deals with decision-making for adults who may lack capacity to make specific decisions for themselves. The Court of Protection may need to become involved in difficult cases or cases where there is disagreement which cannot be resolved in any other way. The Court of Protection:

• decides whether a person has capacity to make a particular decision for themselves;
• makes declarations, decisions or orders on financial or welfare matters affecting people who lack capacity to make such decisions;
• appoints deputies to make decisions for people lacking capacity to make those decisions;
• decides whether a Lasting Power of Attorney or Enduring Power of Attorney is valid; and
• removes deputies or attorneys who fail to carry out their duties.

What happened

12. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
13. In August 2023, Mr Y was living in a supported living placement, funded by the Council. In November, Mr Y asked the Council to review his care and support plan to progress moving to a new placement. The Council did not complete a review.
14. Mr Y moved into a rental property in June 2024 and began paying privately for 24-hour care seven days a week at home.
15. The Council completed what it called an ‘informal’ reassessment of Mr Y’s ‘situation’ in late 2024. In August 2025, the Council completed a formal reassessment of Mr Y’s needs and began a financial assessment to decide what Mr Y should contribute towards his care. The Council has not completed the financial assessment because Mr Y’s deputy has not provided the information necessary. Mr Y’s deputy states they are prevented by court order from sharing the information the Council wants.
16. Despite, this, the Council began part-funding Mr Y’s 24-hour care package on an interim basis, so that he would not miss out on care if his funds ran out. The Council backdated its funding to August 2025. It began charging Mr Y for his contribution towards his care, based on the financial information the Council already had. The contributions were also backdated to August 2025.
17. Mr X feels the Council should backdate paying for Mr Y’s care to June 2024, when he began receiving the 24-hour care package. The Council says it will not backdate its funding of Mr Y’s care package further because it had not agreed to the 24 hour a day care package when it began.
18. The Council assessed Mr Y again in November 2025, when he said he did not want 24-hour care and wanted to move home. The Council feels 24-hour care is not necessary, but Mr Y’s deputy and Mr X disagree. There is also disagreement about whether Mr Y has the mental capacity to make decisions about his care and finances. As a result, the Council has prepared a new application to the Court of Protection to decide whether Mr Y has capacity. If the Court of Protection concludes Mr Y does not have capacity, the Council intends to ask it to decide:
• Where Mr Y should live;
• What care and support Mr Y needs; and
• How Mr Y’s finances should be managed, in terms of the funds the Council will contribute towards paying for his care.

Analysis

19. I have ended my investigation into Mr X’s complaint that the Council delayed assessing Mr Y’s needs and issuing a care and support plan. Mr X says the Council’s delay meant Mr Y paid the full cost of his 24-hour care package between June 2024 and August 2025, when the bulk of the costs should have been covered by the Council. However, there is a dispute about whether Mr Y needs 24-hour care, which is centred on whether Mr Y can make his own decisions about what care he wants. The Ombudsman cannot decide whether a person has capacity to make decisions about their care and support. That is a decision for the Council to make. If there is a dispute, as in this case, the Court of Protection is the appropriate way to resolve that dispute. If Mr Y is found to lack capacity, the Court will decide what care he needs and where he should receive it. I cannot decide the Council should pay the costs of Mr Y’s 24-hour care package between June 2024 and August 2025 when I cannot say whether Mr Y needed 24-hour care.
20. In addition, the Council has been unable to complete Mr Y’s financial assessment because his deputy will not share the full details of his finances due to a court order. The Ombudsman makes decisions about maladministration and service failure. We are not the correct body to decide whether a court order will be breached by a certain disclosure; that is for the courts. Without a completed financial assessment, even if I could say Mr Y did need 24-hour care between June 2024 and August 2025, I could not say how much the Council should reimburse Mr Y by, as his contributions have not been confirmed. Therefore, any investigation into the alleged delay assessing Mr Y and issuing a care and support plan would not have a worthwhile outcome.
21. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has not shared records or evidence of its decision-making about Mr Y’s needs and care and support, because any fault did not cause a significant injustice in its own right as Mr Y has continued to receive care and support to meet his needs.
22. Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to safeguard Mr Y properly has not been through its complaints procedure. It is reasonable for Mr X to complain about the matter to the Council, so I have not investigated it.

Back to top

Decision

23. I have ended the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman