Summary: We upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to provide the support to meet his Care Act assessed needs. The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by issuing an apology and paying Mr X a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
1. Failed to provide Adult Social Care support to meet his assessed Care Act needs.
2. Unlawfully withdrew support without ensuring suitable alternatives or safeguarding were in place.
3. Failed to make reasonable adjustments regarding his preferred communication methods under the Equality Act 2010.
2. He wants the Council to reinstate suitable Care Act support; appoint a Care Act advocate and work with his previous local authority to ensure his needs are properly met.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended).
4. We cannot find that an organisation has breached the Equality Act. However, we can find an organisation at fault for failing to take account of its duties under the Equality Act.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. If we investigated this complaint, we would be likely to find fault in the Council's failure to meet Mr X's assessed Care Act needs for three months between October 2025 and January 2026. The Council did not unlawfully withdraw support. However, it delayed providing support because of service capacity issues. Councils have a statutory duty to meet eligible needs once identified. Staffing and capacity pressures do not remove that duty. As a result, Mr X experienced avoidable distress, uncertainty and a period during which his assessed needs were not met.
8. The Council discussed safeguarding concerns and continuity of care arrangements with the other local authority involved. That authority accepted responsibility for meeting Mr X's needs when he returned to its area. The Council also arranged for an independent Care Act advocate to support Mr X.
9. Mr X complained the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments for his preferred method of communication. The evidence shows the Council communicated with him in writing, in line with his stated preference. Any proposal for in-person contact was linked to the Council's safeguarding duties following concerns about self-neglect. We are therefore unlikely to find fault in the Council's approach to communication as it sought to balance its duties under the Equality Act 2010 with its safeguarding responsibilities.

Back to top

Agreed action

10. To remedy the injustice caused, within four weeks of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise in writing to Mr X for the fault and injustice caused. 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 the apology we have recommended.
• Make a symbolic payment of £300 to Mr X to recognise the distress, uncertainty and impact of unmet care needs experienced during the three-month period.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We have upheld this complaint, and the Council has agreed to resolve it early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman