Summary: We did not find fault with the Council’s Care Act assessment of Mr X or its handling of his reasonable adjustment requests. We found fault with the Council failing to initially provide the outcome of the Care Act assessment to Mr X and for placing Mr X on a pending list for a further Care Act assessment in error. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X for the uncertainty its fault caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council delayed in allocating him a social worker and completing a Care Act assessment in a reasonable timeframe. Mr X says the Council’s actions left him without adequate support.
2. Mr X also complained the Council failed to meet its duties under the Equality Act and ignored his communication needs, including for written-only contact.

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 recommend 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. 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 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 all comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Rules and regulations

Care Act assessment

8. Councils must assess anybody in their area who appears in need of care services. Following an assessment the Council must decide which needs are eligible for their support. If the Council provides support it must produce a written Care Plan.
9. The Care Act Statutory Guidance says councils must consider three issues when deciding if someone has eligible needs:
• are the adult’s needs due to a physical or mental impairment?
• are the effects of the adult’s needs such that the adult cannot achieve two or more basic care activities, including maintaining nutrition, maintaining personal hygiene, being appropriately clothed, toileting, developing and maintained relationships, accessing and engaging in work or education, maintaining their home and being able to use their home safely?
• if the adult cannot complete two or more basic care activities, does this impact on the adult’s wellbeing in a significant way?
10. Being unable to achieve one of the basic care activities includes where the adult:
• cannot achieve the outcome without help;
• can achieve the outcome without help but doing so causes the adult significant pain, distress or anxiety; or
• can achieve the outcome without help but takes significantly longer than would normally be expected.
11. The Care Act Guidance states an assessment should be carried out over an appropriate and reasonable timescales but does not provide a set timescale. The Council says it aims to complete assessments within 28 days of referral or request. However, the timescales of assessments can vary depending on the specifics of each case. The Council’s policy says it will keep a person informed about their assessment as it progresses.

The Equality Act

12. 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.
13. 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. The protected characteristics include disability.
14. 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.
15. 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

16. In April 2025, Mr X met with a council social worker. Mr X confirmed with the social worker he did not want care and support at this time because of his living situation. The Council advised Mr X to contact its Adult Social Care team if his needs changed.
17. In July 2025, a referral was made to the Council about Mr X. The Council contacted him the following day and allocated a social worker three days after this. The allocated social worker contacted Mr X and arranged a Care Act assessment.
18. Eleven days after first contact, the social worker completed a Care Act assessment visit for Mr X. The Council completed its Care Act assessment the day after the visit and decided that Mr X did not meet the eligibility criteria threshold for care and support. The Council said Mr X’s main need was a housing one and decided to take no further action at this time. The Council noted it could revisit this if Mr X’s situation changed. The Council did not share this outcome with Mr X.
19. On the same date the Council completed its Care Act assessment, Mr X provided evidence of his Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) diagnosis to the Council. The Council placed Mr X on a pending list for consideration and allocation with its Learning Disability and Autism Team.
20. At the start of August 2025, Mr X contacted the Council twice for an update on his Care Act assessment. Mr X also confirmed his preferred method of contact was by email. The Council told Mr X it was waiting allocation of a social worker but could not say how long this would take and noted down his preferred contact method.
21. Mr X’s advocate contacted the Council for an update. The Council told Mr X’s advocate it had decided Mr X was not eligible for care and support following assessment but had placed Mr X on the pending list with its Learning Disability and Autism Team. The Council said if Mr X was planning to move to a new council area, they would need to carry out their own assessment.
22. On 19 August 2025, Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council. Mr X said:
• He had not received a Care Act needs assessment;
• The Council had not allocated him a social worker;
• The Council had left him without support;
• He had clear unmet needs and considered he was eligible under the Care Act; and
• His unsuitable housing situation was worsening matters.
23. Mr X also outlined his reasonable adjustment requests for contact moving forwards.
24. In September 2025, Mr X moved out of the Council area.
25. On 16 October 2025, the Council sent its complaint response to Mr X. The Council said:
• It had completed a Care Act assessment for Mr X in July 2025.
• Following the Care Act assessment it decided Mr X did not meet the eligibility criteria.
• It transferred Mr X to the Learning Disability and Autism Team in July 2025. The Council said it placed Mr X on a pending list for assessment in error even though it had already assessed Mr X as not eligible.
• It would not allocate a social worker for Mr X because it has already completed an assessment.
• It had recorded Mr X’s communication adjustments previously as written-only and applied these.
• Mr X could approach the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman with his complaint.
26. Later in October 2025, the Council confirmed the Learning Disability and Autism Team would be in contact to complete an assessment.
27. In January 2026, the Council’s Learning Disability and Autism Team completed a Care Act assessment of Mr X. The Council determined Mr X had eligible care needs which it would need to meet if Mr X moved back to their area.

Analysis

First Care Act assessment

28. The Council completed a Care Act assessment of Mr X within 12 days of the referral to its service. This is an appropriate timescale for completion of an assessment and well within the Council’s own timescale for completing assessments. I do not find fault for the timeliness of the Council’s actions.
29. When the Council completed the assessment, it decided Mr X did not meet the eligibility criteria. The Council has shown it considered Mr X’s individual circumstances when completing its assessment and made a decision it was entitled to make.
30. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body, so cannot comment on the merits of judgements and decisions made by councils in the absence of fault in the process. Since the Council considered the relevant legislation and policies in making its decision that Mr X did not have eligible care needs under the Care Act, I do not find fault.
31. However, the Council did not tell Mr X about the outcome of his Care Act assessment initially. The Council only told Mr X’s advocate about the outcome of the assessment after three further contacts. This was fault causing uncertainty to Mr X.

Learning Disability and Autism team

32. Following the Care Act assessment in July 2025, Mr X provided information to the Council which prompted it to refer him to its Learning Disability and Autism team. This was the correct course of action given Mr X’s ASD diagnosis.
33. In the Council’s complaint response, it clarified it had placed Mr X on a list for assessment, rather than simply for allocation, with the Learning Disability and Autism team in error, this was fault. While the Council placed Mr X on the pending list for assessment in error, it told Mr X’s advocate within three weeks that it had already completed an assessment and found no eligible needs. The Council also told Mr X’s advocate that the new council area would need to complete an assessment once Mr X moved. However, the fault in placing Mr X on pending list for assessment would have caused Mr X uncertainty.
34. Shortly after the Council issued its complaint response, in which it told Mr X he was placed on the assessment pending list in error, it contacted Mr X to confirm it would be contacting him to complete an assessment. This contact with Mr X was fault and created further uncertainty.
35. The Council did complete a further Care Act assessment of Mr X in January 2026. However, it completed this on the basis that Mr X may have been moving back to the Council’s area. This action was appropriate and proportionate to Mr X’s change in circumstances. I do not find fault. It is also of note that simply because the Council considered Mr X had eligible care needs in January 2026, does not mean he had eligible care needs in July 2025 when his circumstances were different.

Reasonable adjustments

36. The first contact from Mr X to make the Council aware of his reasonable adjustment requests was when he made a formal complaint to the Council. Before this date, Mr X had advised the Council his preferred contact method was by email but had not advised this was for a reasonable adjustment.
37. Following Mr X’s reasonable adjustment request the Council has met Mr X’s reasonable adjustment requests. This included communicating with Mr X solely by email, providing responses in line with Mr X’s requested format where possible, providing a single point of contact social worker and copying in Mr X’s advocate into relevant contacts.
38. The Council has met Mr X’s reasonable adjustment requests and I do not find fault.

Back to top

Action

39. Within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision the Council will:
• Provide an apology to Mr X for the uncertainty caused to him by the Council’s fault through failing to tell him the outcome of the first Care Act assessment until Mr X chased for the outcome and placing him in an assessment pending list in error.
40. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

41. There was fault leading to injustice. As the Council has accepted my recommendations I have completed my investigation as I consider that a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman