Summary: Mr X complained on behalf of his mother, Mrs Y, about the Council’s failure to respond to his requests for respite care for her. The Council was at fault for failing to respond to one request and delaying in responding to another. It also delayed in responding to his complaint. This caused Mr X and Mrs Y frustration, uncertainty and to miss out on respite. The Council should apologise and make a symbolic financial remedy to recognise this.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of his mother, Mrs Y, about the Council’s failure to respond to requests for respite care for Mrs Y. Mr X also says the Council failed to respond to his complaint about this matter.
2. Mr X says this caused him frustration in having to chase the Council and that they both missed out on respite provision they were entitled to.

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. 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 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

Legislation and guidance

Assessment

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. 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.
9. Councils must carry out assessments over a suitable and reasonable timescale considering the urgency of needs and any variation in those needs.

Respite

10. Adult social care respite refers to temporary care provided to adults with disabilities, chronic illnesses, or other care needs, allowing their regular carers a short break.

Council complaint process

11. The Council has a one stage complaint process for adult social care complaints. The Council says it will try to respond to complaints within ten working days.

Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman principles of good administrative practice

12. In 2018 the Ombudsman published a guidance document setting out the standards we expect from bodies in jurisdiction. This says we expect councils to keep to commitments and deal with people helpfully, promptly, and sensitively.

What happened?

13. This statement is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this complaint, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.
14. Mr X is an unpaid carer for his elderly mother, Mrs Y, who lives with him.
15. In March 2025, Mr X first asked the Council to provide respite for Mrs Y for a period at the end of April 2025. He noted he had identified a suitable residential care home to provide this respite care.
16. At the start of April, Mr X contacted the Council again about this respite care. He also asked for a second period of respite care to take place at the start of August 2025 for one month.
17. In mid-April, Mr X contacted the Council a further time, about the need for an identified respite place for Mrs Y in August. The Council did not respond to this.
18. Mr X contacted the Council again in early June noting that the period for the requested respite in April had now passed, without the Council responding. He said he still needed the Council to arrange the requested respite for the August period.
19. The Council responded in early-June asking for more information about his respite request, which Mr X provided.
20. Mr X chased the Council again in early-July, as it had not responded to his June communication.
21. The Council responded a few days later apologising for the delay. It arranged to complete an assessment with the family to determine Mrs Y’s eligibility for respite care.
22. In mid-July, the Council completed the assessment with Mrs Y, which Mr X supported her with. Mr X expressed being stressed and exhausted from his care giving responsibilities. The Council noted it would complete a care act assessment urgently and seek an urgent funding approval for respite care because it considered Mrs Y to be eligible.
23. Following this, the Council agreed the respite in late July.
24. Mr X complained to the Council in September that it had repeatedly failed to respond to requests for respite care for Mrs Y. He complained that Mrs Y missed out on respite in April because the Council ignored his requests and that it delayed in responding to his request for August respite.
25. Mr X emailed the Council again in October, asking for an update on his complaint.
26. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in May 2026. It apologised for the delays in responding to his first respite request. It noted that Mrs Y’s allocated social worker left the team and the Council failed to follow up and make handover arrangements for the respite request to be processed. It noted it had reflected on the learning from this complaint and would remind staff of the importance of effective case handovers.

Findings

27. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with the appearance of need for care and support. The threshold for this is low.
28. The Council has already accepted its failure to respond to Mr X’s first request for respite care in March 2025, despite several follow-ups from him. Mr X had clearly told the Council that Mrs Y seemed to need respite care and so the Council should have carried out an assessment to determine her needs and eligibility. It did not do this, and this was fault. The Council’s actions were not in line with the Care Act 2014.
29. I have considered the injustice that this caused Mr X and Mrs Y. Following Mr X’s request for a second period of respite in April 2025, the Council completed an initial assessment in July 2025 and decided that Mrs Y was eligible for respite care.
30. Given the short period of time between the March 2025 request and the assessment completed in July 2025, I consider, on balance, that Mrs Y’s needs would probably have remained unchanged had the Council responded to Mr X’s first respite request. Consequently, the Council’s failure to reply not only caused Mr X ongoing frustration due to repeated follow-ups but also likely resulted in both of them missing out on respite care.
31. Mr X also had to chase the Council several times between April 2025 and July 2025 before it responded to his second respite request for the August period. We would expect a Council to deal with individuals helpfully, promptly, and sensitively, taking account of their circumstances. The Council did not do this here, and this was fault. This caused Mr X frustration in having to chase this matter and uncertainty about whether the Council would provide the respite care.
32. I also note that when Mr X complained to the Council in September 2025, it took the Council eight months to respond. This was not in line with the Council’s complaint policy which notes it will respond to adult social care complaints within ten working days. This was fault which caused Mr X frustration. The Council has already apologised for the delay, but I will also ask the Council to make a symbolic financial remedy to recognise the significant delay in responding to his complaint.

Back to top

Action

33. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council should:
• apologise to Mr X and Mrs Y for the frustration and uncertainty caused to them by its faults. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making its apology;
• make a payment of £200 to Mrs Y to remedy the frustration and uncertainty caused by failing to respond to Mr X’s respite request and delaying in responding to a second request; and
• make a payment of £250 to Mr X to remedy the frustration and uncertainty caused by failing to respond to his respite request and delaying in responding to a second request and his complaint.
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 to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman