Summary: The Council failed to put in place the care provision it had agreed for part of the period and misled Ms X. For the remainder of the period there is no fault by the Council. That meant Ms X and Y missed out on provision and experienced uncertainty. An apology, payment to Ms X and Y and guidance for officers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainants are a mother and son, Ms X and Y. They complained the Council:
• failed to provide Y with appropriate and sufficient support from March 2024; and
• failed to provide Ms X with sufficient respite hours.
2. Ms X and Y say the Council’s actions mean they have both missed out on support and it has impacted their mental health.

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. 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. 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)
6. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have exercised the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate what has happened since March 2024 even though that is more than 12 months before the complaint to the us. That is because I am satisfied Ms X and Y are vulnerable.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Ms X's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
9. Ms X, Y and the organisation 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

Care and support

10. 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.
11. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance says 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.
12. 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.

Charging for care and support and financial assessments

13. 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)
14. 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.
15. 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.

Disability Related Expenditure

16. 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.

Support for carers

17. 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 assessment. A carer 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.

The Council’s carers assessment and support plan guidance

18. This says a person has a right to receive an assessment to determine what their needs are if it appears to a local authority a carer may have needs for support. This can be part of a combined assessment with the cared for person or alone.
19. In straightforward situations where the cared for person agrees to an assessment, is eligible for support and agrees to the carer being present at the assessment, it is reasonable to determine carer need as part of a holistic process. That is called a combined assessment. That is only appropriate if agreed by both the carer and service user. However, if the outcome is likely to be the carer requires regular support via a weekly budget the assessment should be recorded on an individual assessment.
20. Where it has been identified through the assessment that a carer has eligible unmet support needs the Council will develop a support plan.

What happened

21. Y lives with his mother, Ms X. Y had previously received support from adult social care. That had stopped due to disengagement.
22. Ms X contacted the Council in April as she was experiencing carer strain. The Council said it would refer Y for an assessment and provided Ms X with information about sources of support for carers.
23. A Council social worker visited Ms X and Y at the end of May and began an assessment. As Y was distressed Ms X agreed to email the social worker to explain how the caring role was impacting on her.
24. In June Ms X provided the Council with information about the impact of the caring role. Ms X said she needed a PA two evenings a week, for Y to go out in the community twice a week during the day and for one night a week respite for Y away from home with an extra night respite every four months.
25. The Council identified a care provider, care provider A, to provide some support for Y in August. The intention was to arrange an introductory visit. However, care provider A later told the Council it could not provide a service as it had taken on an emergency client.
26. Council officers visited Ms X and Y later in August with a manager from a new care provider, care provider B. Care provider B agreed to provide PA’s 12 hours a week to support Y in the community with the intention of building that up to 18 hours.
27. Care provider B put in place five hours support for Y which took place in the home from 17 September.
28. The Council contacted Ms X to discuss respite services from provider A in September. That again broke down because provider A withdrew.
29. Provider B contacted the Council in October to raise concerns about not receiving payment for the provision it had put in place for Y.
30. The Council wrote to Ms X in October to explain following a financial assessment Y would have to pay £89.26 per week towards his care.
31. As the Council had identified the original social worker had not followed the right process the fair outcome panel considered the case in November. The panel agreed the following:
• 2 days at a day centre per week for Y;
• 19 hours PA support per week for Y;
• 12 nights respite per year.
32. The Council told Ms X. The Council said it would arrange for an officer to progress the care provision and respite.
33. Ms X raised concerns about the number of nights respite provided. The Council explained the package agreed had been the one requested by the previous social worker following the assessment. The Council said it could allocate a new social worker to carry out a review. The Council said it would contact care provider B to reinstate the care package as it had stopped by that point as the care provider had not received payment.
34. The Council allocated a new social worker who arranged an appointment with Ms X and visited in December. Ms X raised concerns as care provider B had not put provision back in place because it had not received any payment. The social worker escalated that.
35. Later in December the Council confirmed the care package previously agreed and wrote Ms X to explain Y’s contribution would be £89.26 per week. Ms X said her son could not afford that.
36. The Council contacted care provider B in January 2025 to ask about arranging overnight respite. Care provider B told the Council it could not provide that. The Council contacted care provider A to see whether it could make any provision for overnight respite.
37. The Council completed the care assessment review in January 2025. The outcome was for three daytime sessions per week for Y, 19 hours domiciliary services per week for Y and 12 residential respite nights per year. Ms X asked the Council to review the financial assessment. The Council sent Ms X a new financial assessment form for her to complete. The Council also paid the invoices for provider B.
38. Council officers visited Ms X and Y in February to update the assessment. Those officers had some concerns about establishing what Y wanted and whether he could make decisions on care provision and finances. The Council decided it needed a mental capacity assessment. The Council told Ms X it would refer the case to its panel to agree the care package previously approved. The Council told Ms X it needed to complete a mental capacity assessment and asked for a meeting.
39. Ms X contacted the Council to say she wanted to speak to a solicitor about the Council’s proposals. Ms X cancelled the visit the Council had arranged. Ms X told the Council it could visit to carry out the carer’s assessment. The Council explained it had carried out the carer’s assessment as part of its assessment in February 2025. The Council asked for a meeting to plan for the services Y required and asked for details of Ms X’s availability.
40. Ms X put in a complaint. Ms X declined further visits.
41. The Council responded to the complaint in May and explained to proceed with the assessments it needed to meet with Ms X and Y.
42. In July the Council made an advocacy referral for Y.
43. A multidisciplinary meeting took place in July. That meeting noted Y had eligible care and support needs and raised concerns about the impact of disengagement. The Council agreed the relationship with the allocated officer had broken down and agreed to allocate a new officer.
44. Following a complaint from a representative for Ms X and Y the Council responded to explain the assessment begun in February 2025 was uncompleted as Ms X had cancelled further visits. The Council said it would allocate a new social worker to carry out an assessment and offered a face-to-face financial assessment review.
45. The new social worker contacted Ms X in August. The social worker visited Ms X in September and discussed the need for a mental capacity assessment and outlined care options. That included supported living. Ms X agreed for the Council to update Y’s assessment and her own assessment using information it already had to avoid repetition.
46. Officers met with Ms X and Y again in September and offered Ms X a carer assessment. Ms X asked for the Council to email it so she could complete it in her own time. Y said he wanted to explore staying somewhere else part-time. The Council agreed to make referrals to supported living and care provision and explained the mental capacity assessment.
47. The fair outcome panel considered the case. The panel agreed to put short-term respite provision in place with the intention of developing a long-term plan. That involved one night respite every other week or, potentially, every week, with provider A. The long-term proposal was for:
• a supported living placement with a split week - some days at the placement and some days at home with Ms X;
• 1:1 support within the placement for Y to help him work towards his goals and interests;
• support for Y to engage socially and build friendships;
• support during the transition for Y;
• then, following the move to living more independently the Council intended to refer for further assessments to understand what Y could and could not do.
48. The Council contacted the advocate to find out whether she had met with Y. The advocate explained she had not received any response from Ms X or Y.
49. Care provider A told the Council it did not have any suitable vacancies to provide support to Y.
50. An officer visited to carry out the mental capacity assessment in October and to discuss supported living. Following that visit Ms X raised concerns about the financial implications of supported living. In response the officer told Ms X the Council could only provide a maximum of 28 respite nights per year.
51. The Council contacted Ms X in November to arrange the second part of the mental capacity assessment and so the advocate could meet Y. Ms X said she did not believe Y needed an advocate and raised concerns about the mental capacity assessment process. Ms X told the Council she intended to seek legal advice.
52. The Council decided to offer interim support so Y had some provision while it continued with the mental capacity assessment and advocacy process separately. The Council’s fair outcome panel agreed a package of support. The Council arranged a visit to Ms X, which she cancelled. Ms X told the Council she could not deal with social services at that point, was contacting a solicitor and did not want to meet with officers.
53. The Council allocated a new social worker in January 2026 who contacted Ms X. Ms X told the Council she did not feel ready for involvement with adult social care and did not want any support before the end of March.
54. A nurse visited Ms X in March, following which she contacted the Council. The nurse told the Council Ms X had said she would contact adult social care in April or May for a meeting after she had taken further advice.
55. As the Council had not received any contact it contacted Ms X in May to talk about arranging a PA for Y. The Council chased Ms X in June. Ms X told the Council she needed more time before she could engage.

Analysis

56. Ms X and Y say the Council failed to put in place sufficient support for Y from March 2024. Ms X says the Council then failed to pay provider B once support began, which led to it ceasing. I am satisfied the Council carried out a care needs assessment for Y in May 2024. That resulted in the Council agreeing three daytime activity sessions per week for Y, 19 hours domiciliary services per week and 12 nights respite per year.
57. I am satisfied the Council acted on that by identifying a provider to put provision in place. However, it is clear care provider B only put five hours of provision in place, with the intention of increasing it. There is no evidence that level of provision was increased though. Nor does it appear that provision addressed Y’s need for support to access the community. That is fault.
58. I am also concerned the care needs assessment did not follow the right process. Once an outcome had been established the assessment should have gone to the panel to approve funding. That did not happen. Instead, the officer dealing with the case arranged for the in-person provision to be put into place but did not make any arrangements for it to be paid. That is fault. I am satisfied it is that failure which led to the Council not paying care provider B which meant the support ended in November. I am therefore satisfied Y missed out on care support from 18 November 2024.
59. I have seen no evidence the Council put in place the overnight respite provision intended to give Ms X a break from her caring role. I recognise the Council made a referral to care provider A for that but there is no evidence the Council made any attempts to identify an alternative provider when it became clear care provider A could not provide any support. As the Council had agreed Ms X needed 12 overnight respite breaks, failure to put that in place is fault. That meant Ms X missed out on a break from her caring role.
60. The situation is more complicated from February 2025 though. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council began a further assessment with Ms X and Y as they were unhappy with the level of support offered. The documentary evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council tried to arrange further meetings with Ms X and Y to complete the process. I am satisfied the reason those meetings, and the proposed provision, did not go ahead is because the Council struggled to get engagement from Ms X.
61. I am satisfied part of the issue here was the assessed charge Y was required to pay towards his care. It is clear Ms X had raised concerns with the Council about the charge and had asked the Council to discuss disability-related expenditure with her. I am satisfied the Council sent Ms X a new financial form to complete in January 2025. I have seen no evidence Ms X returned that form to the Council. Given the difficulties engaging with Ms X it would have been helpful if the Council had followed that up and discussed disability related expenditure as that might have reduced the overall charge and encouraged Ms X to engage. I cannot speculate though about whether Ms X would have been willing to engage given the evidence I hold showing regular disengagement.
62. I note though when the Council carried out a further assessment in September 2025 that resulted in a discussion about arranging a supported living placement for Y with the intention he would spend part of the week with Ms X. I am satisfied the reason that did not go ahead is because the Council struggled to get engagement from Ms X.
63. I understand Ms X had some concerns about Y moving into a supported living placement and the implications that would have financially. However, as Ms X and Y had not agreed to the provision I cannot criticise the Council for not making arrangements for supported living at that point.
64. The evidence I have seen also satisfies me the Council had some concerns about whether Y could make his own choices about the care provision he received, where he wanted to live and how to manage his finances. I am satisfied the Council tried to arrange a mental capacity assessment and an advocate for Y to establish what he wanted. I am satisfied the reason those did not go ahead is because Ms X was not happy to engage. I therefore cannot criticise the Council.
65. However, the Council knew Y had unmet needs and Ms X was struggling in her caring role. Pending clarification about the need for supported living I would have expected the Council to consider putting in place an interim care package with respite hours for Ms X. I have seen no evidence the Council attempted to do that until December 2025. That is fault. However, I note the reason an interim care package has not gone ahead since December 2025 is because Ms X did not engage. Ms X has also told the Council she does not feel ready for further involvement from social services. I am therefore satisfied the lack of a current care package and respite is not due to fault by the Council. So, I cannot criticise it.
66. Ms X says the Council failed to offer enough hours of support to enable her to have respite. As I said earlier, I am satisfied the Council assessed Ms X as needing 12 overnights respite per year initially. As I am satisfied the Council reached that conclusion after carrying out a proper assessment which detailed the impact on Ms X of providing care for Y I cannot criticise it.
67. I also note part of the reasoning the Council had for offering only 12 overnights respite initially was so Y would have time to adjust and adapt to change slowly as he had not been in respite before, with the intention of reviewing that over time. That is a matter of officer judgement and not one I could comment on. However, I am concerned the Council did not explain its reasoning for only agreeing 12 overnight respite breaks to Ms X or that it intended to review that over time. That is fault.
68. Ms X says the Council refused to carry out a carer assessment and then said it had completed the assessment when it had not spoken to her about it.
69. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council carried out a combined assessment in 2024. I am satisfied that assessment considered the impact on Ms X of having to care for Y as well as Y’s needs. I am satisfied that is why the care provision initially agreed included 12 hours overnight respite. So, I could not say in carrying out its assessments the Council had not taken account of Ms X’s needs.
70. I recognise though Ms X says she did not have any involvement in the carers assessment the Council said it completed in 2025. Ms X therefore disputes the assessment took place or that she had any involvement. The evidence I have seen satisfies me Ms X sent the Council her response to the questions posed on the carer assessment in July 2025. I am also satisfied the subsequent carer assessment the Council completed included, verbatim, what Ms X had said. So, I could not say the Council failed to consider Ms X’s needs. As I have made clear, I am satisfied the Council explained in the paperwork its reasoning for only agreeing 12 overnights respite initially.
71. Ms X says the Council told her she could only have a maximum of 28 overnight respite care per year when she needs overnights at least once a fortnight. Ms X therefore says the Council is not considering her circumstances.
72. The Council accepts one of its officers told Ms X she could only have a maximum of 28 overnight respite. The Council accepts that information is incorrect as each assessment is carried out on its merits. Giving Ms X incorrect information is fault. I do not consider that resulted in an injustice to Ms X other than her frustration though. That is because I am satisfied the reason provision has not been put into place from 2025 onwards is due to a lack of engagement from Ms X and Y.

Has Ms X and Y been caused an injustice?

73. I consider the failure of the Council to put in place all elements of the care package in 2024 caused Ms X a greater injustice than Y. That is because Y continued to have his care needs met by Ms X and it was Ms X that missed out on respite. To remedy that injustice and Ms X’s uncertainty I recommended the Council pay Ms X £750. For Y, he missed out on accessing the community which his PA’s should have facilitated before the arrangements with care provider B broke down. I recommended the Council pay Y £200.
74. I do not consider the Council at fault for any lack of provision after February 2025 and I therefore do not recommend a remedy for that. Nor do I make any recommendations around any further assessment going forwards. That is because the latest information shows Ms X has declined input from adult social care. I recommended though the Council provide guidance to officers about the process they should follow following a care assessment and the steps required to ensure a package is put into place when it is agreed. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Action

75. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Ms X and Y for the distress and uncertainty they experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet;
• pay Ms X £750;
• pay Y £200; and
• provide guidance to officers about the process they should follow following a care assessment and the steps required to ensure a package is put into place when it is agreed.
76. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

77. I find fault causing injustice. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman