Summary: Mx F complained about the Council’s handling of their care and support. This included its decisions to reduce the care package, support received from carers, delays in the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) process, and discrimination. We did not find fault by the Council on the substantial parts of the complaint. It was at fault for causing delays in the DFG process and failed to respond to some parts of their complaint. This caused Mx F some distress and uncertainty for which the Council agreed to apologise. Some parts of the complaint had been part of a court process and was therefore not investigated.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mx F, complained about the Council’s handling of their care support and its decision to reduce their care package following a re-assessment in 2025. They said:
• it wrongly reduced their care and support package from live-in care to four hours per day without properly considering their needs and views. It also failed to share its Care Act assessment with them and led them to believe the live-in care support would continue;
• live-in care support commissioned by the Council had led to some poor care support as carers were not sufficiently trained. They felt bullied, blamed, and incidents occurred which meant fundamental care standards were not adhered to; and
• they had asked for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) to make adaptations in the home, but there had been no progress or no outcome for a year; and
• they were discriminated against due to being misgendered and failing to properly consider their physical and hidden disabilities.
2. Mx F said, as a result, they experienced distress and uncertainty, and inadequate care support. They also said their relationship with family members had been impacted and were at risk of losing their job.

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 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. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
8. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
9. 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

10. Mx F’s complaint relates to matters which has happened since Spring 2024. They brought their concerns to our attention in Autumn 2025. Part of their complaint is therefore late. I have found it appropriate to consider their complaint from April 2024.
11. I have not investigated events which occurred after Autumn 2025. This is because this was after the Council’s complaint responses and they had brought their concerns to our attention. Mx F can raise a new complaint with the Council if they are unhappy with its handling of the care and support since then.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Mx F and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. Mx F 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

Assessments

14. 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.
15. 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.

Care Plan

16. The Care Act 2014 gives councils a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan (or a support plan for a carer). The care and support plan should consider what needs the person has, what they want to achieve, what they can do by themselves or with existing support and what care and support may be available in the local area. When preparing a care and support plan the council must involve any carer the adult has. The support plan must include a personal budget, which is the money the council has worked out it will cost to arrange the necessary care and support for that person.

Reviews

17. Section 27 of the Care Act 2014 says councils should keep care and support plans under review. Government Care and Support Statutory Guidance says councils should review plans at least every 12 months. Councils should consider a light touch review six to eight weeks after agreeing and signing off the plan and personal budget. They should carry out reviews as quickly as is reasonably practicable in a timely manner proportionate to the needs to be met. Councils must also conduct a review if an adult or a person acting on the adult’s behalf makes a reasonable request for one.

Fundamental Standards of Care

18. The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 set out the fundamental standards that registered care providers must achieve. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has guidance on how to meet the fundamental standards.
19. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is the statutory regulator of care services. It keeps a register of care providers that meet the fundamental standards of care, inspects care services, and reports its findings. It can also enforce against breaches of fundamental care standards and prosecute offences.

Disabled facilities Grants

20. Disabled Facilities Grants (DFG) are provided under the terms of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Councils have a statutory duty to give grants to disabled people for certain adaptations. Before approving a grant, a council must be satisfied the work is necessary, meets the disabled person’s needs, and is reasonable and practicable.
21. In March 2022 the government issued non-statutory guidance “Disabled facilities Grant (DFG) Delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England.

This guidance advises councils in England on how they can effectively and efficiently deliver DFG funded adaptations to best serve the needs of local older and disabled people. It brings together and sets out in one place existing policy frameworks, legislative duties and powers, together with recommended best practice, to help councils provide an adaptation service to disabled tenants and residents in their area.

22. The March 2022 guidance identifies five key stages to delivering home adaptations:
• Stage 1: First contact with the service. Councils should ensure the public has access to information and advice about the DFG process.
• Stage 2: First contact to assessment and identification of the relevant works. An occupational therapist (OT) will assess the person’s needs and potential solutions through home adaptations.
• Stage 3: Identification of the relevant works to submission of the formal grant application. The person completes and submits the application form together with designs and costing for the works (where necessary).
• Stage 4: Grant application to grant decision. The Council will check the application and issue a decision letter. If a council refuses a grant, it must explain why.
• Stage 5: Approval of grant to completion of works. The works are arranged and carried out and the necessary quality checks made.
23. We expect councils to consider whether interim equipment or temporary works should be provided when it will take them a long time to secure a permanent solution.

Equality Act

24. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
25. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
26. The ‘protected characteristics’ referred to in the Act are:
• age;
• disability;
• gender reassignment;
• marriage and civil partnership;
• pregnancy and maternity;
• race;
• religion or belief;
• sex; and
• sexual orientation.
27. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
28. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.

What happened

29. This is a brief summary of what happened. It is not intended to be a detailed chronology of events.
30. Mx F has been diagnosed with significant physical and mental health conditions which impacts their ability to manage their needs. They have some equipment in place to support them.
31. In 2024 Mx F had a Care Act assessment which set out they had eligible needs for support in all areas. They had care and support plans which set out how their needs should be met. This was largely through a 24-hour live-in care support. They also had some unpaid care support from their partner.
32. The Council commissioned Mx F care and support arrangement to be provided by care agencies. They have had several agencies and carers in recent years. When arrangements with carers broke down some agencies provided new carers, and when arrangement with an agency broke down, the Council recommissioned their care with a new care agency.
33. In December 2024 Mx F told the Council the relationship with a care agency had broken down. The Council arranged an assessment and a review of their care and support plan. It found:
• their needs remained unchanged. However, the social worker was of the view Mx F could move away from live-in care support with time, if support and equipment could be provided.
• It would recommission for live-in care support, which was subsequently put in place. However, this would be for eight weeks. After this an Occupational Therapist should provide input and a Care Act review should take place.
34. The Council completed a Care Act Assessment in March 2025. Mx F, their partner, an advocate and the Council were part of the assessment. It found they continued to have eligible needs in all areas. These were met by the live-in care support in place. Other support was also in place for Mx F to get to and from work, which was partly supported by the Access to Work scheme.
35. In late Spring 2025 the Council completed its review of Mx F’s care and support plan. This was after its Peer Review Panel had considered the case, including information received during the assessment and information from the care provider. The Council decided:
• Mx F did not require night-time support as evidenced by the care logs provided by the care agency.
• Mx F needs could be met though a domiciliary care support arrangement of four daily visits of 1 hour per day at set times. It said this would start from July 2025 to allow transition;
• an Access to Work assessment should be pursued to explore what support may be available for Mx F. It was aware a Motability vehicle for them would still be a long wait. It asked for consent to discuss work arrangements with their manager, but this was declined by Mx F;
• equipment and assistive technology could be explored to promote independence, but it needed Mx F’s consent to make referrals and liaise with mental health services; and
• some care support delivered by the care provider may not be in keeping with national eligibility criteria.
36. The Council said it shared the Care Act Assessment and care and support plan with Mx F’s advocate. However, as this was not shared with Mx F, they asked the Council for an update in early June 2025. The Council told them of the reduction in their support.
37. The Council subsequently shared its care and support plan for Mx F with them.
38. Mx F made a self-referral for safeguarding, as they disagreed the Council’s care and support plans were safe. They also self-harmed which required medical treatment. The Council closed the enquiry shortly after. This was partly because it had extended the timescale for the new arrangements to start until August 2025.

Mx F’s complaint

39. In June 2025 Mx F complained to the Council. They said:
• it wrongly reduced their care and support package from live-in care to four hours per day without properly considering their needs and views. It also failed to share its Care Act assessment with them and led them to believe the live-in care support would continue;
• live-in care support commissioned by the Council had led to some poor care support as carers were not sufficiently trained. They felt bullied, blamed, lied to, and incidents occurred which meant fundamental care standards were not adhered to;
• they had asked for a DFG over a year ago to make adaptations in the home, but there had been no progress or no outcome for a year; and
• they were discriminated against due to being misgendered and failing to properly consider their physical and hidden disabilities. They also said some carers had discriminated them.
40. In response the Council acknowledged Mx F’s concerns but explained it had found their needs could be met through domiciliary care support as proposed. It said it had extended the change to allow for a longer transition period. It also said:
• it would arrange an Occupational therapist assessment to progress the DFG request.
• if Mx F consented, it would make referrals to explore equipment that could support their independence. It also advised them to consider exploring further support through Access to Work with their employer.
• a Multi Agency Team meeting would be arranged before the new care and support plan would start in August 2025. This would then involve a comprehensive review of their care and support to identify a domiciliary care package which would meet their needs.
41. Mx F and their partner escalated their complaint to the Council. They felt they had not been listened to and disagreed the care and support plan would meet their needs, and Access to Work could offer anything further. They also said they had not received the Care Act assessment, and some parts of the complaint had not been addressed, the DFG request should be expedited, and welcomed a Multi-Agency Team meeting but wanted a full Care Act re-assessment by a new social worker.
42. In early August 2025 the Council arranged for a care agency to visit Mx F to arrange their care support as set out in their new care plan. Mx F said they declined to provide support as it would not be appropriate for them. The Council subsequently arranged for Mx F to be placed temporarily in a care home.
43. Mx F applied to a court for an injunction for the Council not to reduce their care and support until further assessment of their support needs were completed, which was granted.
44. In its final response the Council largely did not uphold Mx F’s complaint, but it did acknowledge Mx F had not received its Care Act assessment. It found:
• it had properly considered Mx F’s needs and it had considered views of those involved, including Mx F, their partner, and professionals;
• Mx F had some nighttime needs, but it had decided this was limited and could be managed with some equipment. All personal care in the care and support plan would be provided in the four daily visits;
• Mx F’s care and support needs had been set out in their care plan. This included specific needs, their communication preferences, and references to documents they had created for carers. However, it was committed to review how the information in the plan was used in practice to ensure person-centred care was provided; and
• a new social worker had been allocated, but their care assessment accurately reflected their needs. It therefore did not intend to complete a new Care Act assessment and would continue to review the care and support plan in line with statutory requirements.
45. During the court proceedings the Council agreed to complete a fresh Care Act assessment, and the injunction was lifted on that basis. The Council told Mx F it would allocate a new social worker to reassess their needs and carry out a new support planning process in line with the Care Act 2014. It would also source a live-in care provider based on their previous care and support plan for Mx F.
46. In October 2025 Mx F asked the Ombudsman to consider their complaint. They remained dissatisfied with the Council’s responses and wanted it to remove the April 2025 Care Act assessment from its records.
47. In response to our enquiries the Council said:
• it has since completed a further needs assessment for Mx F. However, Mx F has contested its decisions through a legal process. Mx F has had existing care and support arrangements in place during this.
• an occupational therapist was allocated to assess Mx F for the DFG entitlement. It acknowledged there were significant delays in this process for over a year. It has taken steps to reduce waiting lists. Mx F’s DFG case has since been closed as it found they were required to make a significant contribution.
• it had not discriminated against Mx F. It acknowledged it had not addressed this concern in its complaint responses, and they had been misgendered on some limited occasions in documents. Other concerns about discrimination were for the care agency, which it was satisfied had been addressed as a quality assurance matter and CQC had been involved.

Analysis and findings

The Spring 2025 Care Act assessment and care plan

48. Mx F said the Council’s Care Act assessment in Spring 2025 was flawed and its care and support plan would not meet their needs.
49. However, as Mx F used a legal remedy in court in August 2025, I cannot consider the Council’s handling or decision making around the Spring 2025 assessment or the care and support plan it issued. This is because their concerns have therefore been, or could have been, considered by a court.
50. Also, the care and support they received remained unchanged before the Court involvement. The outcome of the proceedings were an injunction and a fresh assessment and care and support planning process, which was likely to be the most we could have achieved.
51. The Council did acknowledge it had not shared its Spring 2025 Care Act assessment directly with Mx F, and they did not get the subsequent care and support plan until they asked for it. This was fault. The Council has apologised for the oversight and took steps internally to ensure lessons were learnt. I am satisfied the Council’s apology and actions were appropriate to address the impact this had on Mx F.
52. In addition, it was not fault by the Council to continue to plan for live-in care support in Spring 2025 until it had made its decisions relating to Mx F’s care and support plan. I acknowledge this meant Mx F felt they was led to believe the existing arrangements would continue. However, this was necessary to ensure their care and support remained in place until the Council’s process was completed. I also note the Council’s decision to end the live-in care support had not been made at the time.

The care support Mx F received

53. Mx F had support from live-in carers which the Council commissioned through care agencies since April 2024. I understand they had issues with agencies and individual carers, including the level of training or skills of carers. In response, the care agencies provided new carers, and the Council commissioned new care agencies.
54. I acknowledge Mx F has raised issues and concerns about individual carers actions. Including how they spoke with them, or actions taken or omitted during their care support.
55. The Council was responsible for the overall arrangements of Mx F’s care and support as set out in their care plans. However, based on the evidence available, I found the Council:
• acted on the concerns it received by addressing concerns with care agencies. This included quality assuring care agencies in its contract management and ensuring the CQC were aware of concerns regarding potential breaches of the fundamental care standards;
• sought updates from the care agency when issues had been reported or new carers had been put in place;
• recommissioned care support for Mx F when relationships with care agencies had broken down. This was both when Mx F had raised concerns, or if care agencies were unable to support them anymore; and
• it arranged care support with agencies in line with the eligible support needs it had found for Mx F.
56. Mx F had made detailed task lists for the live-in carers which included weekdays, weekends, and during nighttime. I understand there were disagreements between some carers and Mx F about how their support was provided, what happened on some occasions, and how they were spoken to. I am not satisfied further investigation into these concerns would enable me to reach a view on whether individual carers failed to provide Mx F’s support as set out in their care and support plan.
57. I have therefore not found fault by the Council for the care support it put in place or how it handled concerns it received.
58. In addition, the Council placed Mx F in a care home in August 2025 which was when the live-in care arrangement was due to end following extensions. This was not agreed care and support Mx F should receive, as the 2024 care and support plan remained in force. However, due to the circumstances and disagreements between the parties, this was what the Council was able to put in place with short notice. It subsequently arranged for a care agency with live-in care support to be reinstated. Considering the limited duration, I have not found this was fault by the Council. Although, I acknowledge this was a challenging period for Mx F.

The Disabled Facilities grant process

59. The Council acknowledged it had caused delays in the DFG process for Mx F. This was because after Mx F’s contact with its service, there had been significant delays in allocating an occupational therapist due to work force challenges.
60. While there are no statutory time limits for the Council to allocate an occupational therapist and no DFG application was therefore submitted for Mx F, the Council’s delay in allocating one for over a year was a service failure.
61. I cannot say whether the outcome of Mx F’s DFG request would have been different but for the Council’s delays. I have also had regard to the Council’s initial considerations into how Mx F’s request was decided to be low risk, any interim measures were unlikely to be relevant, and the outcome of the DFG process after a therapist had considered the request. I am satisfied the significant delay caused Mx F some distress due to the uncertainty it caused. An apology is appropriate to remedy to acknowledge the impact this had.
62. I have not made any service improvement recommendations on this point. This is because the Council has since amended its policy for triaging DFG requests and its process to reduce delays.

Discrimination and complaints handling

63. Mx F said they had been discriminated against by carers and the Council. I cannot say whether the Council has breached the Equality Act 2010, as such decisions are for the courts. I can only consider whether the Council had proper regard to its duties under the Act when considering Mx F’s personal circumstances and concerns.
64. The Council acknowledged it had not addressed Mx F concerns in its complaint responses. It also accepted it had misgendered Mx F is some records, and this may have made them feel its considerations were not person-centred. I found this to be fault by the Council. It should have responded to this point of their complaint and acknowledged its errors. I am satisfied an apology, and its corrective action is appropriate to remedy the impact this caused.
65. I have not found evidence the Council failed to consider it Equality Act 2010 duties in how Mx F was supported or assessed. This is because their assessments, care and support plan, and other communication shows it had regard to their protected characteristics. If Mx F feels it breached the Act due to the decisions it made, they have the right to bring a claim to court.

Back to top

Action

66. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Mx F, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. apologise in writing to Mx F to acknowledge the injustice its faults caused them;

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.

67. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

68. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault by the Council on the substantial parts of the complaint. However, it was at fault for causing delays in the Disabled Facilities Grant process and failing to respond to some parts of their complaint. The Council agreed to apologise to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty this caused Mx F.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman