Summary: Mrs B complained the Council has failed to provide her daughter with care and support and has failed to provide her with any support as a carer. We found delay in carrying out a financial assessment and service failure in finding a personal assistant caused uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to make symbolic payments to Mrs B and her daughter to remedy this.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained on behalf of her daughter, Miss J, that the Council has failed to provide her with care and support since October 2024 and has failed to provide her with any support as a carer.
2. Mrs B says the lack of support has caused Miss J distress and her mental health has deteriorated. Mrs B has been left exhausted as she has had to manage Miss J’s unmet needs whilst juggling full-time work. She wants the Council to apologise, provide the care and support, pay financial redress, and review its services and procedures.

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. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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.
8. 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

What I have and have not investigated

9. I have investigated the period October 2024 to October 2025. Mrs B came to us in October 2025. This makes complaints about events prior to October 2024, late and I do not have good reason to exercise discretion to investigate prior to that.
10. Our policy is that our investigation period ends when the complainant comes to us. I have set out later events for context, but I have not made findings on events after October 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I spoke to Mrs B about her complaint and considered the information she sent and the Council’s response to my enquiries.
12. Mrs B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Care and support

13. The Care Act 2014 requires local authorities to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. The assessment determines what the person's needs are and whether the person has any needs which are eligible for support from the council.
14. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance says that an assessment should be carried out over an appropriate and reasonable timescale, taking into account the urgency of needs and considering any fluctuation in them. We expect councils to complete assessments in a timescale that is proportionate to the complexity of the issues, and normally within six weeks. If it is a particularly complex assessment then the council should tell the person how long is likely to take.
15. Where councils have determined that a person has any eligible needs, they must meet those needs. The person's needs and how they will be met must be set out in a care and support plan.

Personal budget and direct payments

16. Everyone whose needs the local authority meets must receive a personal budget as part of the care and support plan. A personal budget sets out the cost of meeting eligible needs, the amount a person must contribute to that cost and the amount the council must contribute. An indicative amount should be shared with the person at the start of care and support planning, with the final amount of the personal budget confirmed through this process.
17. A personal budget can be administered as direct payments to enable people to commission their own care and support.

Charging for care and support and financial assessments

18. Where a council arranges care and support to meet a person’s needs, it may charge the adult for the cost of the care. (Care Act 2014, section 14)
19. Councils must assess the means of people who have less than the upper capital limit (£23,250), to decide how much they can contribute towards the cost of their care. In assessing what a person can afford to pay, a council must take into account their income, such as pensions or benefits. People who have capital over the upper limit pay the full cost of their care.
20. People receiving care and support other than in a care home need to keep a certain level of income to cover their living costs. After charging, a person’s income must not reduce below a weekly amount known as the minimum income guarantee (MIG). This is set by the government and reviewed each year.
21. The statutory guidance does not set any timescales for completing a financial assessment but requires it to be done alongside care planning within an “appropriate and reasonable timeframe”. Care provision should not be delayed waiting for completion of the financial assessment. The Council’s adult social care charging and financial assessments policy states that financial assessments are normally completed within two weeks of the care package starting.

Disability Related Expenditure

22. 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. The Guidance sets out a list of examples of such expenditure. It says any reasonable additional costs directly related to a person's disability should be included. There is no fixed statutory timescale for deciding DREs, but they are normally considered as part of the financial assessment.
23. The Council’s framework for DREs says it needs receipts or other evidence of the extra money a person spends because of their disability, and that costs cannot be considered until that evidence is received. It also says the Council will give a written assessment outcome, and that where evidence is provided later it will recalculate the contribution and backdate the amount to the first assessment. It says people can appeal a decision about DREs. The Council aims to consider the appeal within 20 working days.

Support for carers

24. Where somebody provides care for another adult and it appears the carer may have any needs for support, the council must carry out a carer’s assessment. A carer’s assessment must seek to find out not only the carer’s needs for support, but also the sustainability of the caring role itself. The Care Act 2014 says the council may meet the carer’s needs by providing a service directly to the adult needing care.

What happened

25. I have summarised the events.
26. Mrs B’s daughter, Miss J, has autism and anxiety. She had turned 18 years old in 2023. In July 2024, the Council contacted Mrs B to arrange a care and support assessment. Mrs B said the family did not have the capacity at that stage to deal with an assessment due to appealing to the SEND Tribunal about Miss J’s education, health and care plan.
27. The care and support assessment started on 2 October and was completed on 22 October. At this point a referral should have been made for an assessment to be done of Miss J’s finances, including any DREs, but there is no evidence this was done.
28. The care and support assessment found that Miss J was eligible for support in relation to her emotional wellbeing, managing relationships, accessing work and the community, and shopping and preparing meals. The intention was to use a mental health community support outreach team to provide floating mental health support and one‑to‑one support. The Council says it advised Mrs B during the assessment that care and support was chargeable.
29. There is evidence that a carer’s assessment was drafted in November. This said Mrs B should have respite. The carer’s assessment was not sent to Mrs B.
30. A care and support plan, including an indicative personal budget, should have been agreed with Miss J by mid-November (within six weeks of the start of the assessment). The plan was not issued until late January 2025.
31. On 15 November, the Council contacted Miss J to arrange to visit alongside the mental health outreach team. On 10 December, Mrs B emailed the Council asking whether the social worker and mental health worker would be visiting that day as arranged. In reply, the social worker explained she was in a meeting and had understood the visit had been cancelled.
32. The Council say the outreach team was then restructured and stopped operating in its previous form. It was therefore unable to provide the floating mental health support set out in Miss J’s assessment. The Council discussed with Mrs B using a personal assistant instead to provide one-to-one support for 15 hours per week. A care and support plan was issued on 27 January 2025 setting this out. The plan says Miss J could be supported by either floating mental health support or a personal assistant.
33. Personal assistants are usually employed by the service user and funded by direct payments. But the Council initially commissioned a support worker. It made a referral for an outreach supported living provider on 5 February. On 21 February, the Council told Mrs B it had found three possible providers. They would contact Mrs B and Miss J.
34. Mrs B told the Council on 6 March that two of the providers had made appointments but then cancelled at the last minute, which was distressing for Miss J. She said the commissioned providers were not suitable for Miss J as they were not prioritising her and were not specialist mental health support. Mrs B said the family did not have capacity to search for a personal assistant themselves and Miss J required support.
35. Mrs B asked whether her son, Mr K, could provide support as Miss J’s personal assistant. On 7 March, the Council emailed Mrs B saying this would need to be approved as an exception because the direct payments regulations and the care and support guidance say direct payments should not be used to pay a close family member living in the same household, except where the local authority considers it is necessary to do so. Mrs B says on 18 March, at a home visit, the Council advised her Mr K could be a personal assistant but I have not seen evidence of that.
36. On 21 March, a referral was made for direct payments to be set up to employ a personal assistant. Mrs B told the Council she did not want to proceed until a financial assessment had been completed, as Miss J needed to know what her contribution would be.
37. A direct payment officer visited Miss J and Mrs B on 31 March. The officer advised that the Council had not agreed, under exceptional circumstances, that Mr K could act as her personal assistant, as other options needed to be tried first.
38. Mrs B complained to the Council on 11 April that Miss J was still not receiving any care and support since the assessment in October 2024. She said the delays, uncertainty and repeated cancellations caused significant harm to Miss J’s mental health and placed an unreasonable burden on the family, who felt left without effective support or clear communication.
39. The Council advised Mrs B on 25 April that Mr K could act as her personal assistant for three months. Mr K carried out this role for a short time and the Council has since agreed to reimburse Mrs B for the cost of this.
40. The Council replied to the complaint on 14 May. It:
• Apologised for difficulties with the previous worker before October 2024.
• Said the proposed specialist mental health service no longer existed.
• Had passed her concerns about the three commissioned providers to the Quality Assurance team.
• Confirmed that Mr K could act as Miss J’s personal assistant for three months.
• Said it would search for alternative personal assistants and consider longer‑term options if no suitable PA was found.
41. A referral was made on 20 May for a financial assessment to be done. The information sent to Mrs B on 22 May included a form for requesting DREs and a leaflet explaining the Council’s charging policy. The Council advertised for a personal assistant.
42. Mrs B returned the financial assessment forms on 9 June, this did not ask for any DREs be considered. The Council completed the financial assessment on 16 June. It found Miss J should contribute £81 per week to the cost of a personal assistant.
43. Mrs B disputed this amount. She considered the social care support should be free because it was contained in section H of Miss J’s EHC plan. Mrs B said Mr K was no longer able to provide support. She also noted that she had not had a carer’s assessment. Mrs B said she did not want to progress with recruiting a personal assistant until the outcome of the financial assessment was known. She said Miss J did not want to be sent a bill which she did not have the funds to pay.
44. The Council met Mrs B on 10 September. It apologised there had been poor social work practice. The Council agreed to readvertise for a personal assistant. There was a discussion about DREs and the Council sent Mrs B the draft carer’s assessment compiled in November 2024.
45. Mrs B came to the Ombudsman. The Council started to consider the request for DREs on 10 October and found a possible support worker at the end of October. Mrs B said they were unable to engage and still required the financial assessment and decision on DREs to be completed before agreeing to the care.
46. In relation to DREs, the Council requested further evidence about the expenditure from Mrs B in January 2026. A revised financial assessment outcome applying DREs was issued on 14 January, this found the DRE was £209 per week and Miss J’s contribution was nil.
47. The Council met Mrs B and Miss J in January 2026. As no personal assistant had yet been found, it offered to provide short term enablement support for up to six weeks. Miss J met with the enablement worker. She says the worker decided she did not need care and support, which was devastating for her and caused her to lose trust in the Council. The Council said it would need to re-assess Miss J as her circumstances had changed as she was now in a supported internship. Mrs B told me Miss J did not have the capacity to engage with a reassessment due to the significant impact the situation had had on her mental health.

My findings

48. After the care and support assessment was completed on 22 October 2024, the Council should have agreed a care and support plan with Miss J which set out how her needs would be met. It did not issue this plan until 27 January 2025. I consider this to be delay and fault. But it did not cause a significant injustice to Miss J because between December and February the proposed mental health provision was ended, so a new plan would have had to be issued in early 2025 anyway. I deal with the provision of care and support separately below.
49. The Council compiled a carer’s assessment in November 2024 but it failed to send it to Mrs B or agree it with her. This was fault. But the lack of a carer’s assessment report in itself did not cause significant injustice, because any respite support for Mrs B that it recommended could not have been put in place until a personal assistant was arranged. I deal with that separately below.
50. I have found no delay or fault putting care and support in place from 22 October 2024 to 21 February 2025. The Council contacted Mrs B and Miss J on 15 November to arrange a visit in December to discuss the support. I do not find drift or delay here. I appreciate that, due to her autism, it was particularly distressing for Miss J that the visit was then cancelled. The evidence I have seen shows this was due to a miscommunication about the availability of the social worker but I have not seen fault by the Council.
51. Once it became apparent in January that that the community floating mental health provision would not be available to Miss J, the Council searched for different support workers to commission. It had found these by 21 February 2025. I do not find drift or delay. It was Mrs B’s and Miss J’s choice not to use the commissioned provision as they did not consider it suitable, but I have seen no fault in the way the Council commissioned the support. The care and support plan said Miss J could be supported by either mental health support or a personal assistant. The referral to the providers sets out Miss J’s needs. I therefore cannot criticise the Council’s decision that the supported living outreach providers could have met Miss J’s needs.
52. There was delay in the Council’s financial assessment. The assessment, including a decision on any request for DRE, should have been completed by 27 January 2025. This is because it should be done alongside care and support planning, take about six weeks and there should have been a referral for it in October 2024. I have seen no evidence of a referral for a financial assessment until March 2025. The Council did not start the financial assessment until May 2025 and completed it in June 2025.
53. The Council’s policy says financial assessments will be completed within two weeks of a care package starting. Our view is that, in most circumstances, councils should complete financial assessments before they create care and support plans and before any care and support starts. This allows people to make informed decisions about the care and support they want.
54. By January 2025, the Council had issued the care and support plan and indicative budget. Mrs B had also made clear that knowing Miss J’s contribution was important to her decision about whether to proceed with a personal assistant. In those circumstances, the Council should have progressed the financial assessment before care was provided. I therefore find this delay was fault.
55. Mrs B disputed the June 2025 financial assessment and requested consideration of DRE. The Council sought further evidence before deciding the request. Mrs B says there was delay by the Council from November 2025 to January 2026. I have not investigated events after October 2025. However, I do not need to make a finding on the handling of the DRE request because I have already found the Council delayed starting the financial assessment and that a decision on the financial assessment and DRE should have been made by January 2025.
56. The delay in progressing the financial assessment caused Mrs B and Miss J uncertainty about Miss J’s contribution. Although they had an indicative budget in January 2025, this did not set out Miss J’s contribution. If Miss J had known her contribution by February 2025, she could have decided whether to use a personal assistant.
57. In March, Mrs B and Miss J declined the providers commissioned by the Council as they considered them unsuitable. So on the balance of probabilities, even if the financial assessment had been completed by then, care and support would not have started and the Council would still have been searching for a provider. Mrs B and Miss J were entitled to decide not to go ahead with the commissioned provision but as set out in paragraph 51, I have not found fault in the way the Council commissioned those providers. I therefore cannot say they were unsuitable. I therefore do not find that the delay in the financial assessment caused a loss of care and support.
58. Mrs B complains that the Council initially agreed, then refused, to allow her son to be Miss J’s personal assistant. The Council had to decide whether to approve this as an exceptional circumstance, as required by the direct payment regulations. The evidence I have seen shows that the Council agreed on 25 April to allow Mr K to be a personal assistant. The direct payment officer visited on 31 March following a referral to set up payments to employ a personal assistant, but the referral did not say the personal assistant would be Mr K. I therefore have not seen evidence that the request was agreed then refused. But even if it had been this would not be fault, the Council is entitled to reconsider an issue. I do not find fault in the way the Council dealt with the request.
59. The Council re-advertised for a personal assistant in May and one was found by the end of October 2025. It is unclear why it took from April to October 2025 to find another personal assistant. The Council should ensure there is a vibrant, responsive market of service providers. Whilst I have seen no evidence of a lack of providers, I find it was service failure not to find a personal assistant earlier than October 2025. This causes uncertainty because I cannot say, even on balance, that a personal assistant or support worker would have been found if the financial assessment had been completed.
60. The Council is entitled to seek a reassessment if a person’s circumstances change, so I do not find fault.

Did the fault cause injustice?

61. In summary, I have found there was:
1. A delay from mid-November 2024 to 27 January 2025 issuing the care and support plan. But this did not cause a significant injustice to Miss J.
2. A failure to complete the carer’s assessment with Mrs B in November 2024. But this did not cause significant injustice to Mrs B.
3. No delay or fault putting care and support in place from 22 October 2024 to 21 February 2025.
4. A delay in completing the financial assessment. This has caused distress and uncertainty to Mrs B and Miss J. I do not find that this delay caused a loss of care and support.
5. No fault in the way the Council dealt with the request for Mrs B’s son to be Miss J’s personal assistant.
6. Service failure in not finding an alternative personal assistant earlier than October 2025. This caused uncertainty to Miss J about whether support could have been put in place sooner.
7. No fault in the Council asking to reassess Miss J’s care and support needs.
62. 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.
63. 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. This is because it is not possible to now provide the services missed out on. For distress and uncertainty caused by fault, our guidance says a moderate, symbolic payment up to £500 is an appropriate remedy.

Back to top

Action

64. Within a month of my final decision, the Council should pay:
• Miss J £500 and Mrs B £250 to remedy the uncertainty caused by the delay in completing Miss J’s financial assessment.
• Mrs B £110 to reimburse her for Mr K’s support, if not already paid.
65. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

66. There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman