Summary: There were faults in the way the Council assessed Ms Y’s needs and her son, Mr X’s needs as her carer. There was also fault in the information it provided regarding direct payments and in the support provided by the Council commissioned care provider. There was no fault in the way the Council assessed Ms Y’s contribution to her care charges. The Council and care provider have already taken action to prevent a recurrence of the fault and have already apologised to Mr X. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr X to acknowledge the uncertainty, frustration and additional support he was required to provide due to the Council’s faults.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained:
1. The Council’s care and support plan was not adequate to meet his mother Ms Y’s needs as it did not include a lunchtime visit or time to take her out, so Mr X was required to provide this care.
2. The Council failed to complete a carer’s assessment for him despite offering it to him three times, which meant he did not get the support he required.
3. The support provided by the Council commissioned care provider, Care by Us, was poor. It delayed assessing Ms Y’s needs, failed to support her with personal care, failed to stay the full allocated time and failed to notify them if calls were to be outside the scheduled visit time. This caused them distress and frustration and meant Mr X had to meet Ms Y’s care needs.
4. The Council wrongly calculated Ms Y’s financial assessment which means Ms Y was overcharged for her care.
5. The Council and its commissioned service provider Purple failed to provide Mr X with adequate support and advice regarding setting up direct payments which delayed the ability to set these up and meant they missed the opportunity to employ a personal assistant.

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 suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. I have given Mr X, the Council, Purple and Care by Us (care provider A), the opportunity to comment on this draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

9. The following includes a summary of the key facts and events relevant to this complaint. I have investigated what happened from September 2023 until December 2024 and referred to, but not investigated, later events. If Mr X has further concerns about events after December 2024 it is open to him to complain to the Council and then come to us if he remains unhappy.
10. I have set out my findings, below, in several sections. This is because the complaint concerns several different Council and care provider activities.

Assessments and care planning

The relevant law and guidance

11. 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.
12. Case law (R (Davey) v Oxfordshire County Council) found while a person’s preferences had to be taken into account, these had to be distinguished from their needs for care. The court of appeal found the Council’s duty is not to achieve the outcomes which the individual wishes to achieve but to assess whether the provision of care and support could contribute to those outcomes. The wishes of the individual may be a primary influence, but they do not amount to an overriding consideration.
13. Where somebody provides or intends to provide care for another adult and it appears the carer may have any needs for support, the council must carry out a carer’s assessment. A carer’s assessment must seek to find out not only the carer’s needs for support, but also the sustainability of the caring role itself. This includes the practical and emotional support the carer provides to the adult.
14. As part of the carer’s assessment, the council must consider the carer’s potential future needs for support. It must also consider whether the carer is, and will continue to be, able and willing to care for the adult needing care. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014)
15. 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. 

What happened

16. Following a hospital admission in August 2023 Ms Y was discharged home with a reablement care package (short term care funded by the Council or NHS to help someone get back to normal and stay independent) comprising two visits a day to assist with personal care and mealtimes. Ms Y lived with her son Mr X.
17. A social worker visited Ms Y in September 2023 and assessed Ms Y’s needs. They noted Mr X had taken a break from work to support Ms Y but would like support for Ms Y so he could return to work. The social worker recommended an ongoing package of commissioned care to support Ms Y with personal care, maintaining her nutrition and maintaining a habitable home. The social worker noted a carer’s assessment was to be discussed and offered to Mr X to support his wish to return to employment.
18. Care by Us (care provider A) started supporting Ms Y in late September 2023. It prepared a support plan which showed it would carry out two 30 minute visits a day around 9am and 7.30pm to support with personal care, medication and meal preparation.
19. In October 2023 a Council officer telephoned Mr X to complete a carer’s assessment. They noted Mr X said the morning care calls were too variable to be effective to support Ms Y with breakfast. He was providing support with Ms Y’s personal care as she was declining support from care workers. Mr X wanted care provider A to send consistent care workers who Ms Y could be familiar with.
20. The officer noted Mr X was meeting Ms Y’s nutritional needs during the day but would be unable to do so if he was working. They noted Mr X was concerned about lunchtime if he went back to work as he considered Ms Y would not get herself something to eat without encouragement. He felt meals on wheels was not affordable.
21. The officer noted Mr X would prefer direct payments to support Ms Y and that Mr X had been sent information regarding this. The officer noted Ms Y could be left on her own safely after she had her breakfast and medications and was safe and happy to be with a friend down the road during the day-time. They noted Mr X’s issues stemmed from Ms Y’s needs rather than his as a carer. Mr X was not sent a copy of the carer’s assessment that resulted from this conversation.
22. In December 2023 Ms Y’s case was allocated to social worker 2 to review her care needs and to discuss the possibility of direct payments. Mr X asked about direct payments which the social worker referred to the finance team and to Purple - the Council funded direct payment support service who assist individuals in managing direct payments. The social worker spoke to Mr X who had no major concerns about the care workers but said they tended to leave early. They discussed the possibility of direct payments. The social worker contacted care provider A who said they had left early on a couple of occasions when Ms Y refused personal care and other tasks had been completed.
23. Mr X was offered and agreed to a carer’s assessment in early March 2024. However, it did not happen.
24. In early May 2024 social worker 2 met with Mr X and Ms Y to review her care needs. They noted Mr X supported Ms Y with personal care and wanted a personal assistant to support Ms Y with washing, bathing and dressing. The social worker recommended an increase in the morning call to one hour for a personal assistant to support Ms Y with her personal care. They noted Ms Y did not allow the current carers to wash or dress her which meant currently care provider A only needed 30 minutes to support Ms Y. They noted Mr X had complained about care provider A and the social worker suggested a change of provider but Mr X declined.
25. Mr X contacted the Council in August 2024 as he had yet to receive the needs assessment from May 2024.
26. In September 2024 care provider A stopped supporting Ms Y. Mr X employed a different care provider, care provider B, through direct payments.
27. Social worker 2 visited Ms Y in November 2024 to review Ms Y’s care needs. They noted Ms Y said she had no concerns over the care she received from care provider B. The social worker noted the care workers supported Ms Y with meals and personal care and the services were going well. However, Mr X wanted lunch time support for Ms Y to enable him to consider returning to work. Later, social worker 2 tried, unsuccessfully, to telephone Mr X to discuss a carer’s assessment. The social worker emailed Mr X and said they would gather information about his role as a carer and would complete the carer’s assessment based on that if he was happy for them to do so. The carer’s assessment recommended an increase to care visits to include a lunch visit and time to take Ms Y out to give Mr X a break. It was not sent to Mr X.
28. The Council agreed to add a 30 minute lunch call and to increase the budget to include two hours a week to support Ms Y with social outings.
29. Mr X contacted the Council in late December 2024. He had still not received the carer’s assessment or latest care and support plan.

Findings

30. When the Council initially assessed Ms Y it concluded she needed two visits a day and noted the support Mr X was providing included support at mealtimes. However, it failed to properly explore the extent to which he was willing and able to do this. When the Council carried out a carer’s assessment Mr X raised his concern about what would happen at lunchtimes if he went back to work. The officer suggested meals on wheels but when this was discounted failed to explore this further. I have seen no evidence Mr X refused to support at lunchtimes or specifically requested a lunchtime visit until November 2024. However, the Council’s failure to fully explore Ms Y’s need for support at lunchtime leaves uncertainty over whether the Council would have offered a lunchtime call to meet Ms Y’s needs if it had further explored this earlier.
31. The Council carried out a carer’s assessment with Mr X in October 2023. It failed to send him a copy. This was fault. Despite reassessing Ms Y’s care needs and Mr X’s continuing concerns the Council failed to carry out another carer’s assessment until November 2024, despite offering him one and it reviewing Ms Y’s needs assessment. This delay was fault. When it did, the assessment was based on information the Council already had rather than through direct discussion and involvement of Mr X. This was fault. Following the assessment the Council agreed to increase Ms Y’s care package to include a lunchtime call and two hours for social support. The delay in carrying out this assessment adds to the uncertainty over whether this additional support should have been provided sooner. It also leaves uncertainty over any additional support Mr X required beyond that to support Ms Y.
32. Following a senior management review in April 2025, the Council carried out a new carer’s assessment. If Mr X has concerns about the assessment, it is open to him to complain to the Council and if he remains unhappy, then to us. The Council also agreed to remind staff of its statutory duties towards unpaid carers and when offering a carer’s assessment, ensuring the amount of support an unpaid carer can offer is clearly understood. The Council has advised it did this in June 2025. This was an appropriate way to prevent recurrence of the fault so I have not recommended a further service improvement.
33. Mr X is unhappy the Council has only assessed Ms Y as needing two hours of social support per week. Mr X says she needs two hours a day. It is for the Council to decide on what support to provide based on the assessment of need. It may be that Ms Y’s preference would be for two hours of social support a day but the Council’s role is to meet her outcome of receiving social support and it is satisfied this can be achieved through two hours of support per week. There is no evidence of fault in the way it reached this view. In any case, following the management review of Mr X’s complaint, the Council agreed to review Ms Y’s care and support plan. It has since advised that Ms Y’s needs assessment will be reviewed following a recent hospital admission.

2. Support provided by Care by Us

What happened

34. Care by Us (care provider A) started supporting Ms Y in late September 2023. It prepared a support plan which showed it would carry out two 30 minute visits a day in the morning and evening. Mr X said Ms Y needed the morning call around 9am to coordinate with District Nurse visit. There is no reference to this in care provider A’s care plan.
35. Care provider A’s daily records show Ms Y regularly refused personal care. They also show the morning visit times varied with care workers regularly arriving up to an hour later than the scheduled time and some care visits were significantly shorter than the scheduled 30 minutes.
36. In February 2024 Mr X complained to care provider A about the support it provided. Mr X told the social worker it had not responded in writing. He said it suggested meeting Mr X together with the social worker but it had not arranged anything.
37. Care provider A responded to Mr X in May 2024. It apologised for a lack of communication when care workers were delayed. It said it would try to provide regular care workers. Mr X raised further queries with care provider A which the care provider did not respond to.
38. In September 2024 care provider A stopped supporting Ms Y as Mr X employed care provider B via direct payments.
39. In November 2024 Mr X told the social worker care provider A responded late to his complaint and did not provide all the information he requested. Mr X said care provider A did not pay staff for travelling time between clients.
40. In late December 2024 Mr X told the Council he had yet to receive a response to his concerns that care provider A did not notify them when they would be arriving late, despite this being its policy, and his concern about staff not being paid for travelling time.
41. In June 2025 care provider A provided a detailed complaint response to Mr X. It said it had completed a number of quality improvements in the last six months. It said it had reviewed the care records and found:
• The morning calls were not consistently aligned with the District Nurse visits and care workers did not always arrive in the commissioned time frame. Courtesy calls to advise of this were not made.
• Care records showed Ms Y declined care and support on a number of occasions. It apologised that this meant Mr X had to provide extra support. It said it should have highlighted and addressed this through quality checks and supervision.
• Staff received a mileage rate for travel time. It later advised staff received an enhanced hourly rate to cover the cost of travel between calls.
42. It said it had trained staff, improved its communication protocols, increased the frequency of its checks on care and was providing additional support and supervision of staff.

Findings

43. Care provider A delayed responding fully to Mr X’s concerns. This was fault. When it properly considered Mr X’s complaints in June 2025, it accepted it was at fault and made service improvements to prevent a recurrence of the faults.
44. There is no evidence Ms Y was caused a significant injustice by these faults. This is because Mr X provided the care and support to meet Ms Y’s needs which was an injustice to him. In addition, care provider A’s delay in properly responding to Mr X’s complaint caused him frustration.
45. Care provider A has already identified and agreed to take action to prevent a recurrence of the faults. This is appropriate and so I have not made any service improvement recommendations. Following the review of Mr X’s complaint in March 2025 the Council said it would remind staff and team managers that complaints about provider services should be referred to Council staff responsible for arranging care who would monitor the provider’s complaint response. It has since confirmed that this was discussed with staff and managers in a June update meeting. This was appropriate.

3. Charging for care

Relevant law and guidance

46. A council has a duty to arrange care and support for those with eligible needs. A council can choose to charge for non-residential care following a person’s needs assessment. Where it decides to charge, the council must follow the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and have regard to the Care Act statutory guidance. (Care Act 2014, section 14 and 17)
47. The assessment must comply with the principles in law and guidance, including the principle that charges should not reduce a person’s income below Income Support plus 25% (also known as the minimum income guarantee), a figure which is set by central Government.
48. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance says the purpose of the minimum income guarantee is to promote independence and social inclusion, and ensure that the person has sufficient funds to meet basic needs such as food, utility costs or insurance. This must be after any housing costs such as rent and council tax net of any benefits provided to support these costs – and after any disability related expenditure.
49. 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.

What happened

50. The Council completed a financial assessment in October 2023. It made an allowance for 50% of the council tax and additional laundry and deducted the minimum income guarantee. It assessed Ms Y should pay £76.83 a week towards her care costs.
51. Mr X complained to the Council in January 2024 about Ms Y’s financial assessment.
52. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in February 2024. It explained how the financial assessment worked. Mr X remained unhappy. He said there was no explanation of how the minimum income guarantee was calculated. The Council confirmed the financial assessment was correct. It also offered to refer Mr X to its money advice unit for support with assessing his welfare benefits eligibility.
53. Mr X raised further concerns which the Council responded to in March 2024. It sent Mr X a summary of the policy and guidance around financial assessments and charging for care. It explained more details about how the minimum income guarantee worked. It offered to help Mr X with advice about benefit entitlements. It said Ms Y’s care contribution was correctly calculated but the explanation of this could have been clearer. It apologised for this and said the Income and Financial Assessment Team was currently reviewing its communication including letters, leaflets and factsheets to make things clearer.
54. In early May 2024 the Council wrote to Mr X having further reviewed Ms Y’s care charges. It confirmed the financial assessment was correct. It said it remained open to reviewing any disability related expenditure Ms Y may have. It explained as Mr X also lived at the property, he was also liable for council tax. It reiterated its offer of support from the Money Advice Unit.

Findings

55. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council calculated Ms Y’s financial contribution to her care charges. It did so in line with the relevant law and guidance. It offered to help Mr X with any additional benefits he or Ms Y may be entitled to and to consider any additional requests for disability related expenditure. The Council was not at fault.
56. The Council accepted it was at fault for not providing clearer explanations sooner. It apologised for this. That was an appropriate remedy for any injustice caused to Mr X.

4) Direct payments

Relevant law and guidance

57. Everyone whose needs the council meets must receive a personal budget as part of the care and support plan. The personal budget gives the person clear information about the money allocated to meet the needs identified in the assessment and recorded in the plan. The council should share an indicative amount with the person, and anybody else involved, at the start of care and support planning. It should confirm the final amount of the personal budget through this process. The detail of how the person will use their personal budget will be in the care and support plan. The personal budget must always be enough to meet the person’s care and support needs.
58. There are three main ways a personal budget can be administered:

• as a managed account held by the council with support provided in line with the person’s wishes;
• as a managed account held by a third party (often called an individual service fund or ISF) with support provided in line with the person’s wishes; or
• as a direct payment.
  (Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014)

59. Direct payments are made to individuals who ask for them to meet some or all of their eligible care and support needs. They enable people to arrange their own care and support to meet those needs. The council must ensure people have relevant and timely information about direct payments so they can decide whether to request them. If they do so, the council should support them to use and manage the payment properly.

What happened

60. In December 2023 Ms Y’s case was allocated to social worker 2 to review her care needs and to discuss the possibility of direct payments. Mr X was provided with a copy of the Council’s guide to direct payments. Mr X asked questions about direct payments which the social worker referred to the finance team and to Purple - the Council funded direct payment support service that assists individuals in managing direct payments.
61. In January 2024 the social worker advised Mr X what the personal budget would be if Ms Y switched to direct payments. They asked if Mr X wanted to progress this. Mr X wanted to know how many personal assistants were available in his area before he considered this.
62. Mr X complained to the Council in January 2024 about the lack of clarity regarding the direct payment process and the recruitment of personal assistants.
63. Mr X had further queries regarding managing direct payments, the training required and employment arrangements and Purple agreed to contact him direct. In late February 2024 the social worker directly referred Mr X to Purple for support in arranging direct payments.
64. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in February 2024. It said Purple had contacted Mr X directly to discuss his concerns. It said Purple did not provide clear and correct information relating to the support it could provide to identify a personal assistant and about the availability of personal assistants in the area where he lived. It apologised for this.
65. In early March 2024 Purple advised him of one potential personal assistant. It also said it could help Mr X recruit them. Mr X raised concerns about lack of choice and confusion over what training personal assistants required. A manager spoke with Mr X offering further guidance on direct payments and the option of employing an agency or a personal assistant.
66. In May 2024 the Council reviewed Ms Y’s care needs. It agreed to increase the morning call to one hour a day when Mr X employed a personal assistant. The Council sent Mr X a direct payment agreement. He had further queries regarding finding and paying for a personal assistant.
67. The Council produced the care and support plan in early August 2024 which included a personal budget for 10.5 hours of personal assistant support per week. Mr X contacted the Council in August 2024 to query whether care provider A would accept direct payments. Care provider A responded that it would but its hourly rate was higher when employed under direct payments than through the Council’s commissioning arrangements. It also advised Mr X it would not share responsibility for medication management.
68. Purple identified a personal assistant who could support Ms Y on weekday mornings. However, care provider A would not give evening medication if it shared the care package.
69. Mr X also raised concerns with the Council about the size of the proposed budget for direct payments. The Council explained this was not fixed and could be increased if necessary. Mr X identified an alternative care provider (care provider B) which he wished to employ through direct payments.
70. In late August 2024 Mr X and Ms Y signed and returned the direct payment agreement. The Council agreed to an increased budget of £290.99 to start from 1 September 2024 to cover the cost of care provider B, which charged £25.98 per hour or £15.59 for a half hour visit.
71. In late November following a review of Ms Y’s care needs and Mr X’s carer’s assessment, the social worker agreed to increase Ms Y’s care package to include a lunch time call and two hours for social support. The Council increased the direct payment budget to £415.71. Mr X says it was insufficient to employ the care workers at lunch time. This combined with care provider B’s refusal to prepare lunch meant he has not employed the care worker to provide a lunch time call.

Findings

72. The Council has already accepted that Purple, the support service it commissions to assist with direct payments, failed to provide sufficient clear advice to Mr X about direct payments. This was fault for which it has already apologised.
73. The Council reassessed Ms Y’s needs in May 2024 but did not produce a support plan until August 2024. This delayed Mr X’s ability to set up the support Ms Y needed and was fault.
74. When Mr X identified care provider B to support Ms Y, the Council agreed to an increased personal budget to facilitate this. That was appropriate. However, when the Council later agreed to an additional lunch call and two hours of social support it failed to increase the budget in line with the costs charged by care provider B. This meant the budget was not sufficient to cover the care costs and was fault. There is no evidence this caused a significant injustice to Ms Y as Mr X has met her care needs. This has however added to the additional support Mr X was required to provide.
75. When the Council held a further review of Mr X’s complaints in March 2025, it agreed to:
• provide feedback to the commissioning team for Purple to need to make it clearer to care workers that they have the option of working as a self employed personal assistants. It confirmed it has done this.
• produce information and advice on the development and calculation of the personal budget by the end of 25/26.
• create templates for practitioners to use to communicate the amount of personal budget by the end of 25/26
76. These actions are an appropriate way to prevent a recurrence of the faults.

Overall injustice

77. The Council has already taken steps to address the faults identified through this complaint and I am satisfied no further service improvement recommendations are required at this time. The Council has also apologised to Mr X. However, I am not satisfied that is sufficient to remedy the injustice caused to him which includes frustration and uncertainty and having to provide additional support to meet Ms Y’s care needs. Because of the support Mr X provided there is no evidence Ms Y was caused a significant injustice by the faults.

Back to top

Agreed Action

78. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to pay Mr X £1000 to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty caused and the additional support he was required to provide to Ms Y because of the faults identified.
79. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

80. I find fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman