Summary: The Council was at fault for how it assessed Ms X’s care needs. This meant she had to wait longer than she should have for a package of care. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X for the avoidable distress caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to meet her care needs. Ms X said not having proper care and support has caused her long term health to worsen.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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

5. I have not considered events before February 2025. Ms X previously had a care package which ended in 2022. I have not considered events around this care package, the reasons for it ending or any charging issues as too much time has passed since these events happened. I am satisfied Ms X could have complained to us at the time.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Ms 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

Law and guidance

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. Councils should tell people when their assessment will take place and keep them informed throughout the assessment.
10. 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.
11. 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.

What happened

12. There has been a lot of correspondence between Ms X and the Council since February 2025. In this section of the statement I summarise key events but I do not refer to every single contact and communication.
13. In February 2025, the Council carried out a Care Act assessment of Ms X’s needs. Before February 2025, Ms X was not receiving care. She previously had a care package in place some years ago but this ended in 2022.
14. The notes from the care assessment showed the Council decided Ms X had eligible care needs. The outcome of the assessment was that the Council agreed to refer Ms X for an appointee advocate to help her with finances for one hour per week.
15. In early May 2025, the Council reviewed Ms X’s care. The notes showed the assessment recorded Ms X, her mother’s and her an advocate’s view as part of the assessment. The Council again decided Ms X had eligible care needs and decided to put in place a package of care for 11 hours per week. The Council agreed to Ms X’s preferred care provider, Care Provider A, to carry out the care.
16. In late June 2025, emails between Ms X and the Council showed Ms X raised concerns that she was not getting proper care. As a result of this the Council said it would review Ms X’s care.
17. The Council carried out a review of Ms X’s care in early July 2025. The Council decided Ms X had eligible care needs and put in place a 17 hour care package per week. The Council also received information from Care Provider A who raised concerns about Ms X’s night time needs. As a result the Council agreed to look into Ms X’s night time needs by carrying out a four week assessment with a live in carer. Care Provider A carried on providing care to Ms X until the Council could establish her full needs.
18. The live in carer was due to start in early September 2025, however this was not able to take place as the spare bedroom in Ms X’s property was not ready for a live in carer to move into. Email correspondence also showed Ms X said she did not want night time care at this point.
19. Ms X contacted the Council in September 2025 and asked it to cancel Care Provider A. Correspondence showed the Council advised Ms X against this as she could be without care as it would have to source a new provider.
20. On 19 September 2025, Ms X complained to the Council. Ms X complained about the latest care review the Council carried out. She said it did not reflect her needs or what was agreed verbally. Ms X said she needed 96 hours of support per week. Ms X also said she is not getting a care package which has placed her at risk of harm.
21. The Council responded to her complaint on 23 September 2025. The Council said it had allocated her a new social worker to complete a new review of her care needs and then make a recommendation about what support Ms X needed. The Council said Care Provider A was in place to provide Ms X with care.
22. In late September 2025, email communication between Ms X and the Council showed Ms X asked the Council to cancel Care Provider A. The Council cancelled the care provider.
23. In October 2025, the Council carried out a new review of Ms X’s care. The review established Ms X needed a care package made up of 31 hours per week. The Council agreed to look for a provider to take on the care package. The Council also offered Ms X direct payments so she could pay her preferred care provider or a different care provider the Council had found. Ms X declined both options and said she could not manage direct payments due to her disabilities and did not think the provider the Council suggested was suitable.
24. In November 2025, Ms X complained to the Council. Ms X said she had no care in place and there was no timeline for when it would be in place.
25. The Council responded to the complaint in late November 2025. The Council said:
• It carried out a care review and gave Ms X several options to meet her needs.
• It originally put in place Care Provider A as Ms X chose this provider despite it not being one which the Council commissioned. The Council said Ms X asked it to cancel this provider which it did. The Council said it gave Ms X the option of direct payments or another provider which she refused.
• The Council said it suggested direct payments to Ms X as she was asking for the Council to commission another provider who was not on its list of providers it commissioned.
• It had now found a provider to deliver Ms X’s care package.
26. In early December 2025, a new provider started to deliver Ms X’s care package.

Findings

27. In February 2025, the Council carried out a care assessment. The notes from this showed it found Ms X had eligible needs, however there is no details about how these needs would be met and no details as to any care offered to Ms X. This was fault.
28. I note there was a record that Ms X and the assessor’s working relationship had broken down, however I cannot see how the Council were supposed to meet Ms X’s needs at this time, or even if it was going to put in place any interim measures while Ms X received appointee support. As a result Ms X’s eligible needs were not met.
29. It was not until the Council reviewed her care in May 2025, that it put in place a package of care.
30. After Ms X raised concerns in June 2025 about her care package, the Council carried out a further review in July 2025. I do not consider there was fault in how the Council carried out this review. The Council identified it needed to investigate Ms X’s night time needs after speaking with Care Provider A and offered an interim package of care in the meantime.
31. Following this review there did not seem to be a clear plan as to how the live in assessment would work. The email correspondence suggests Ms X did not know what was happening until the live in carer was supposed to start. It also took two months to get the live in care assessment in place. Once the carer attended Ms X’s property they found there was no second bedroom ready for the carer so the assessment could not continue. However at this time Ms X told the Council she no longer wanted night time care.
32. After the live in care assessment ended early, there was not a clear plan about what would happen next until Ms X complained. This was fault. Following her complaint the Council carried out another assessment in October and established a long term care package for Ms X.
33. I do not consider the Council at fault for how it carried out the October 2025 review. The notes from this clearly show Ms X’s views were considered and the assessors findings are clearly detailed.
34. Ms X spent several months without care as the care from Care Provider A ended in September 2025. It was not until December 2025 that her new care package with a different provider started. I do not consider the Council at fault here. Ms X asked the Council to cancel Care Provider A and the Council offered her alternatives such as another provider or direct payments while it found a new long term provider, however Ms X did not agree to this.

Back to top

Agreed Action

35. Within one month of my final decision the Council agreed to carry out the following:
• Apologise to Ms X for the injustice caused by the above faults. 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.
• Pay Ms X £400 to acknowledge the distress caused by the fact the Council did not put in place any care after the February 2025 assessment, until it reviewed Ms X’s care in May 2025.
36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman