Summary: The Council was not at fault in the emergency support it provided to Miss X. It was at fault in its review of her care needs: the care and support plan contained confusing wording which suggested the Council needed to consider her health needs before it could consider increasing her care hours. The Council’s fault caused Miss X uncertainty over the level of care the Council should provide to her. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to support her and her child, Y, following a house fire in November 2025. Miss X said she needed mobility aids that were lost in the fire. She said her care plan did not reflect her care needs and so she was not receiving enough support to meet those needs.
2. Miss X said she and her child have not left the house for months which is impacting their mental and physical health. She is struggling to mobilise indoors and she is concerned about the wellbeing of her child.

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. 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)
5. 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.
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(1), as amended)
7. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
9. I have investigated only those matters that had completed the Council’s complaints process before Miss X approached the Ombudsman. Other matters, such as Miss X’s complaints about her housing situation and Y’s education, have not completed the Council’s complaints process and so I have not investigated them. It remains open to Miss X to escalate these matters to the Ombudsman if she remains unhappy once she has completed the Council’s complaints process.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. I discussed the complaint with Miss X on the telephone.
11. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and a revised draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law, policy and guidance

Assessment

12. 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.
13. 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.

Care Plan

14. 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.

Reviews

15. 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.

Council’s Household Support Fund and Welfare Assistance Scheme

16. The Council operated a discretionary Household Support Fund (HSF). It was described as a fund to provide “household items, food, clothing and other essential items/costs to support households facing financial difficulties due to current cost of living demands”.
17. The Council also operated a discretionary Welfare Assistance Scheme (WAS) that was “designed to assist the most vulnerable in meeting their immediate short-term needs or maintaining their independence in the community in accordance with Durham County Council’s equality and child poverty duties”.
18. The Council’s policy that covered the functioning of the WAS set out that it included two elements:

“Daily Living Expenses (DLE), which aims to help meet an applicant’s immediate short-term needs for goods or services that arise because of a disaster or unforeseen circumstances. In particular, if the inability to afford the goods/services will result in a deterioration of the health or well-being of the applicant or a member of their household. This includes a referral for direct payments to utilities and food parcels.

Settlement Grant, which aims to help applicants remain in the community or move back into the community after a period in supported or unsettled accommodation. This will be achieved by providing access to a range of standard items such as beds, bedding, furniture and white goods”.

19. The policy included that the methods of support provided by the DLE aspect of the scheme were: a referral to a foodbank, a week’s subscription to a community pantry, and supermarket e-vouchers. Support did not include cash payments.
20. The policy explained that the above awards were discretionary and would be awarded to applicants whose circumstances met the criteria outlined in the policy. All applications were assessed in line with the qualifying conditions in the policy and were subject to the amount of grant available at the time of application.
21. The Council’s policy explained the appeals process against decisions about DLE:
• “An appeal about a DLE application should be made within five working days of the notification of the decision being made, or a longer period if considered reasonable
• The appeal can be made in writing, verbally or by e-mail.
• The appeal can be made by the applicant, appointee, carer, advocate or a third party, with the applicant’s consent where appropriate.”
22. Both schemes were replaced by a Crisis and Resilience fund (CRF) in April 2026.

Council complaint procedure

23. Councils should have clear procedures to deal with social care complaints. Regulations and guidance say they should investigate and resolve complaints quickly and efficiently. A single stage procedure should be enough. Regulations do not say how long a complaint investigation should take. But they do say the Council must acknowledge the complaint not later than three working days after the day on which it receives the complaint. (Reg 13, Local Authority Social Services and National Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009)

What happened

24. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology. Paragraph 25 is included for context only.
25. Miss X is homeless and disabled. There was a fire in her temporary accommodation (TA) in early November 2025. The Council accommodated Miss X in bed and breakfast accommodation for a few days before it sourced alternative TA. Miss X has assessed eligible care needs and has a Council-commissioned package of care in place.
26. Miss X made a formal complaint to the Council at the end of December. She said that, since the fire, the Council had not provided her with food, clothing, basic household items, or essential health and mobility aids. She said that a Council officer had told her “We do not pay people’s bills, debts, or food and cannot just send people money”. The Council logged the complaint 10 days (six working days) later.
27. The Council carried out a Care Act review with Miss X in late January 2026. The review included: “[Miss X] stated that due to the house fire, eviction etc. it has significantly affected her physical and mental health causing increased pain and discomfort which the carers have been supporting her with. Therefore the next steps are completing a Continuing Health Care checklist would need to be completed due to the increase in [Miss X’s] needs relating to her health as we need to consider health funding before increasing the care package due to the large amount of hours already in place currently. [We are] completing an OT referral for further equipment discussed in the assessment, [and] looking at a telecare referral for additional safety.”
28. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint in early February. It said this was in response to a complaint she had made in early January (that is, the date the Council logged the complaint). It said that, since the house fire, the Council officer allocated to work with her had:
• Liaised with the Council’s Housing Team;
• Made an application to the Household Support Fund (HSF) on Miss X’s behalf (for a washing machine, fridge freezer, two double beds and mattresses, a sofa and a food voucher) and then chased the progress of the referral. They noted that white goods had been delivered via the HSF in early December;
• Liaised with the Families First team re: Y’s needs;
• Made a referral and then an application to a charity for children’s clothes;
• Called Miss X to discuss an application to the Council’s WAS in early December (Miss X did not answer or return the call). They then visited Miss X at home in mid-December to complete the application for the WAS. On the same day, the WAS advised the allocated Council officer that it could “help with household items only and not bills and debts”.
• Made a referral to the Council’s “single point of access” for mobility aids on the day in early December that Miss X’s carer contacted the Council to explain that Miss X’s mobility aids had been lost in the fire;
• Made a referral to Charity 1 for Christmas presents;
• Made a referral to Charity 2 to assist Miss X with her debts. That charity contacted the allocated Council officer in early January to say it could help, but it could not get hold of Miss X to progress an application (it had called and texted her multiple times).
• Carried out a Care Act review with Miss X in late January.
29. The Care Act review resulted in several actions the allocated Council officer needed to take, including that they would:
1. Make a referral to Occupational Therapy to assess Miss X for a Zimmer frame with a caddy or tray, a wheelchair, and a bed lever;
2. Review Miss X’s care plan to reflect her current needs and the additional support being provided by carers;
3. Contact the NHS wheelchair service again regarding Miss X’s request for a wheelchair;
4. Send information about Care Connect (fall detection service) to Miss X for her consideration;
5. Make a referral to the dietitian to address Miss X’s weight loss and nutritional needs.
6. Contact Miss X’s GP to address the lack of follow-up on her medical and mental health needs, including her CPTSD diagnosis, pain management, and referrals to specialists;
7. Arrange a benefits check to ensure Miss X is receiving all entitlements; and
8. Provide support to help Miss X appeal the negative WAS decision and follow up on the referral to debt management.
30. The officer followed up on each of the actions identified through the Care Act review. They made two attempts to call the wheelchair service in February, but the calls were not answered. When the officer did make contact with the wheelchair service in March, it said that it had not previously received a referral for Miss X. The officer completed a new referral, noting on the form that they had been told, when they spoke with the wheelchair service in December 2025, that a referral was already in train for Miss X.
31. The Council issued the care and support plan resulting from the late-January review in early February. This included a personal budget for the same amount of care (four visits per day/31 hours per week) as in the previous plan.
32. In her complaint to us Miss X said the care and support plan that had been created following the January Care Act review had not increased the level of support the Council would provide for her, even though she was currently unable to safely mobilise around her own home. She said the reviewed care and support plan did not reflect her needs or her circumstances and parts of it appeared to have been cut and pasted from another person’s plan. She later said the Council was updating the review to remove the incorrect information.

The Council’s response to my enquiries

33. The Council said it had made a referral to the WAS for Miss X in mid-December, five weeks after the fire. It said it could not have done so sooner because the referral could not be completed without engagement from Miss X, the provision of information by her about her financial circumstances, confirmation from her of the type of assistance she was seeking, and her consent to proceed. The Council said such information and consent were difficult to obtain because Miss X did not always answer calls or respond to emails.
34. When Miss X’s allocated Council officer did complete an application to the WAS on Miss X’s behalf, Miss X did not respond to multiple attempts at contact by the WAS team. The application was refused because of this lack of contact, and a decision letter issued with the outcome and her right to appeal. The Council said it sent a copy of the decision to Miss X by email but she said she did not receive it and I have seen no evidence it was sent. In her complaint to us, Miss X said she could not appeal the WAS decision not to provide her with support because an officer made the application on her behalf. She said she had not seen the letter of refusal but she believed the officer had incorrectly applied for her to receive help with bills. The Council has since sent her a copy of the letter and Miss X has confirmed she has received it.
35. In mid-January 2026 the allocated Council officer provided Miss X with information about how she could reapply to the WAS herself and with the contact details of the customer service team that could assist her with an application. In late January they completed a further application on her behalf.
36. The Council said that its Families First or Early Help teams (Children’s Social Care) may have been able to arrange alternative financial support for Miss X, but Miss X had not consented to further assessment by those teams in late 2025.
37. The Council said that the care and support plan it created in February 2026 was developed directly from the January 2026 Care Act assessment and reflected the information shared by Miss X at that time. The Council also said the assessment was supported by the use of an AI recording facility which transcribed the discussion and used the information gathered to formulate and populate the assessment form. The plan identified a wide range of eligible needs, including mobility, personal care, nutrition, safety, domestic tasks and parenting support. The Council acknowledged that the assessment included a single inaccuracy that resulted from a transcribing error.
38. The Council had invited Miss X to comment on aspects of the plan that she considered were inaccurate or required updating so that it could make amendments. The Council said it was open to reviewing the plan again if Miss X provides “new or clarified information”.

My findings

Provision of emergency support

39. As well as arranging alternative TA for Miss X, which it did, the main ways in which the Council could consider providing emergency support to Miss X were through its HSF and WAS funds. Both funds were administered on a discretionary basis, so I cannot say the Council should have provided support to Miss X through these funds, only that it should have properly considered doing so.
40. The Council officer allocated to work with Miss X made an application to the HSF on the day that Miss X moved into her new TA, 10 days after the fire, and the items requested were delivered in early December. The Council was not at fault in its administration of the HSF in Miss X’s case.
41. Although the Council did not complete an application to the WAS until mid-December, I find that it was not at fault. This is because I have seen evidence that the Council attempted to complete an application sooner, but it needed further information from Miss X to do so, and she did not answer or return the allocated officer’s calls at that time.
42. Miss X complained that the application her allocated Council officer made to the Council’s WAS on her behalf was declined because they had completed it incorrectly. This was not the case. When the WAS team member told the allocated Council officer that the WAS could not help with Miss X’s bills, this was a reference to the type of support that was available through the DLE scheme (that is, vouchers and referrals to other services, not cash payments). It was not necessarily an indication of the content of the application submitted by the allocated officer. The application made on Miss X’s behalf was declined because she did not respond to the WAS team member’s attempts to contact her to progress her application. The Council did not make an application for a Settlement Grant for Miss X, because it had already provided the same support via the HSF. The Council was not at fault.
43. Miss X said she did not appeal because she did not receive the decision to refuse the application to the WAS in writing, and the application had been made on her behalf. I have seen a copy of the relevant letter, but cannot make a finding, even on balance, as to whether this was emailed to Miss X at that time of the decision. However, Miss X had been verbally advised of the decision, and the Council’s policy on how to appeal WAS decisions was readily available via an internet search. This states that the decision can be appealed by “the applicant…or a third party”. The Council was not at fault.
44. Further, after the application to the WAS was declined, I have seen evidence that the allocated Council officer a) provided Miss X with information about how she could reapply to the Scheme herself, b) provided Miss X with the contact details of the customer service team that could assist her with an application, and c) later completed a further application on her behalf. The Council was not at fault.
45. I have seen documentary evidence of the support the Council provided to Miss X and that it took all the actions set out in its complaint response of early February. The Council was not at fault in its provision of emergency support to Miss X.

Care Act Review and Care and Support Plan

46. Miss X complained that the Care Act review and resulting care and support plan carried out in January 2026 included some inaccuracies, particularly about the nature of her specific health conditions. The Council acknowledged that the assessment included a single inaccuracy that resulted from a transcribing error. On balance, I find that inaccuracies in the assessment would have been limited by the Council’s use of recording and transcription software, and I have seen no evidence that any inaccuracies impacted the Council’s assessment of Ms X’s eligible care needs and the amount of care provided to her. The Council was not at fault. Further, the Council has agreed to correct any inaccuracies Miss X identifies to it. It remains open to Miss X to tell the Council what changes she would like it to make, whether that is to correct inaccuracies or to review and update her plan based on her changing needs.
47. Miss X complained that, although her care needs had increased, the Council had not increased her care package. I cannot say whether Miss X requires additional care to meet her assessed eligible care needs, as that is a judgment for the Council to make. However, the Council was at fault in its statement that “we need to consider health funding before increasing the care package due to the large amount of hours already in place currently”. The Council considered that some of Miss X’s increased needs were health needs, and so it decided to complete a Continuing Health Care checklist. That is not fault: the Council cannot provide care which should be provided by the NHS. But the Council has a duty to meet Miss X’s assessed eligible care needs, even if doing so requires an increase in the amount of care included in Miss X’s care and support plan and her personal budget. The Council’s decision should be based on Miss X’s, needs not the number of hours already in place. There is no evidence that the Council restricted the amount of care it provided to Miss X on this basis, but the wording it used suggested it might do so. This caused Miss X uncertainty about the level of care that the Council should provide to her.

Referral for a wheelchair

48. Miss X complained that the allocated Council officer did not make a referral for a wheelchair for her, leaving her housebound. One of the actions stemming from the Care Act review in late January 2026 was for the officer to contact the wheelchair service “again”. Whilst this implies that the officer had contact with the wheelchair service earlier than this, and the referral form they completed in March 2026 refers to a conversation they had with that service in December 2025, I have not seen contemporaneous evidence of that contact. On the balance of probabilities, I find the officer likely did have a conversation with the wheelchair service in December 2025, and the resulting delay in obtaining a wheelchair for Miss X was caused by a miscommunication between the NHS and the Council, rather than fault on the Council’s part.

Complaint handling

49. Miss X submitted her first formal complaint in late December 2025. The complaint was not logged and acknowledged in Adult Social Care until six working days later. This delay was three working days beyond the timescale set out in the Regulations, but I find this minor delay falls short of being fault.
50. The Council provided a comprehensive response within a further month, which was not fault.

Back to top

Action

51. Within one month of my final decision, the Council will apologise to Miss X for the injustice caused by the fault I have identified.
52. 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.
53. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Decision

54. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed action to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman