Summary: The Council accepted minor errors in an assessment of Ms X’s sight loss. This did not amount to fault. The errors did not impact the outcome of the assessment. The Council has tried to engage with Ms X and offer her both support for her sight loss and wider care support.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about how the Council assessed her following her increased sight loss and how this impacted her daily living. She said the assessment was inaccurate and incomplete and failed to take account of her wider social care needs. Ms X says the Council offered her no support following the assessment. She wants the Council to assess her properly and meet her care needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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

4. Ms X has made several complaints to the Ombudsman about her requests for a care act assessment. Our last investigation considered events up to March 2025 but did not consider Ms X’s assessment of needs relating to sight loss. I have investigated the adequacy of this assessment in February 2025 and the Council’s consideration of Ms X’s wider care needs from March 2025 onwards.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. Ms X suffers from significant sight difficulties and experienced falls and injuries in early 2025. The Council referred her for an assessment from a local charity, the Provider, who carried out an early intervention assessment of Ms X’s needs relating to her sight loss. The Provider carried out the assessment on the Council’s behalf in February 2025.
8. The Provider noted Ms X’s sight loss meant she was unable to leave the house and was struggling with daily tasks. The Provider issued Ms X with equipment to prevent her over filling cups and bowls with liquid and made a referral for low vision and mobility aids. The assessor offered a referral for advice with Ms X’s finances, and the assessment said it gave details of social groups for people with sight difficulties.
9. In March 2025 Ms X returned a self-assessment of her care needs to the Council. She asked the Council to communicate with her via email over the assessment. Over the coming weeks the Council liaised with Ms X by email over her care needs.
10. Ms X complained to the Council on 28 April 2025. She said she was unhappy with the assessment from the Provider. She said it was judgmental and discriminatory with missing information. She was unhappy it referred to her depression as “self-diagnosed” and did not recognise she was the family member of a military veteran. She said she had not asked for advice over her finances and had not been given details of social groups.
11. The Council continued to liaise with Ms X over her care needs and responded to Ms X’s complaint on 28 May 2025. It said the assessment reflected Ms X’s conversation with the assessor but accepted there were some factual inaccuracies and gaps where the Provider should have made it clear an item was not applicable. It offered Ms X another assessment. Ms X remained unhappy.
12. The Council continued to progress Ms X’s request for a care assessment, and made a referral for an advocate for Ms X. It sent Ms X a draft care assessment on 20 June 2025. Following further correspondence, the Council proposed 17 hours a week of care support for Ms X in August 2025.
13. The Council sent Ms X a stage two complaint response on 15 August 2025. It said the assessment was proportionate and offered Ms X a meeting with the Council and the Provider to look at what support it could offer.
14. On the same day the Council sent Ms X a copy of its care act assessment and asked about how she would like to arrange care support. In September 2025 the Provider wrote to Ms X with details of support she was entitled to. Ms X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.

My findings

15. The Council accepted there were some factual errors and omissions in the Provider’s assessment. These minor errors do not amount to fault. The errors identified did not impact the outcome of the assessment or the support services available to Ms X. The Provider made referrals for the aids identified and the Council attempted to engage with Ms X to identify further support needed and a wider care assessment. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Decision

16. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman