Summary: Miss C complained on her own behalf and that of her son, Mr D, who has care needs. We upheld her complaint, finding the Council undertook a flawed review of Mr D’s care needs. This resulted in it wrongly stopping him paying Miss C as his carer, against his wishes. This caused unnecessary distress to both Miss C and Mr D and contributed to Mr D having no organised care provision after July 2024. The Council has accepted these findings. At the end of this statement, we set out the action it has agreed to remedy this injustice and improve its service to avoid a repeat.

The complaint

1. Miss C complained on her own behalf and that of her son, Mr D. She complained that between March and July 2024, the Council:

• unreasonably cut Mr D’s care and support package;
• said that Mr D could no longer use direct payments to employ Miss C as his paid carer;
• required instead that Mr D use a care agency to provide his care that he did not want;
• failed to ensure Miss C received proper notice as Mr D’s paid carer before the care agency began;
• unreasonably threatened Miss C by saying it might begin adult safeguarding procedures when she explained Mr D’s objections to its decisions;
• failed to reinstate Miss C as Mr D’s carer, after the care agency provided him with unsuitable care workers during what Mr D understood was a two-week trial period.

2. Miss C said these events caused her and Mr D unnecessary worry and distress. Mr D cancelled the care agency in July 2024, after which time Miss C continued to meet his care needs as an unpaid carer.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), as amended).
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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. 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)
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

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss C and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. I gave Miss C and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision statement. I considered their responses before finalising the content of the statement.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legal considerations

9. The Care Act 2014 requires councils to carry out an assessment for any adult appearing to need care and support. The assessment considers the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the results they want to achieve. It must involve the adult and their carer or any other person they might want involved.
10. Where an assessment of need finds the adult has eligible care needs, then the council must provide them with a care and support plan. At this stage a council can take account of any care an adult already receives from carers providing care informally. A council does not have to meet eligible care needs being met this way, but only when satisfied the carer remains “willing and able” to do so. (Care and Support statutory guidance, paragraph 6.15)
11. Government guidance says the “guiding principle” for councils when care planning is that it should be “person-centred and person-led”. This is so the person needing care receives care “in ways that work best for them […]”. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance, paragraph 10.5)
12. A care and support plan should set out what needs the person has and how they will be met. For example, where the adult can meet their own needs or when they need support to do so, who will provide that support and how. It should also set out what outcomes the support will help the adult achieve.
13. Government advice on care and support planning says the following:

• “care and support should put people in control of their care, with the support that they need to enhance their wellbeing and improve their connections to family, friends and community”. (see Care and Support Statutory Guidance, paragraph 10.1)
• “The person must be genuinely involved and influential throughout the planning process and should be given every opportunity to take joint ownership of the development of the plan with the local authority if they wish, and the local authority agrees. There should be a default assumption that the person, with support if necessary, will play a strong pro-active role in planning if they choose to. Indeed, it should be made clear that the plan ‘belongs’ to the person it is intended for, with the local authority role being to ensure the production and sign-off of the plan to ensure that it is appropriate to meet the identified needs”. (as above, paragraph 10.2)

14. A care and 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. There are three main ways to manage a personal budget:

• as a managed account held by the council which then arranges for support 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, managed by the person receiving care or their representative. An adult who receives a direct payment may use a third party to help administer the payments.

15. Government guidance says:

• “the ability to meet needs by taking a direct payment must be clearly explained to the person in a way that works best for them, so that they can make an informed decision about the level of choice and control they wish to take over their care and support. This should mean offering the choice more than once in the process and enabling that choice […]”. (As above, paragraph 10.3)

16. In a section headed “paying family members”, Government guidance says:

• “the direct payment is designed to be used flexibly and innovatively and there should be no unreasonable restriction placed on the use of the payment, as long as it is being used to meet eligible care and support needs”. (As above, paragraph 12.35)

17. The guidance goes on to explain the Care and Support (Direct Payments) Regulations 2014 generally exclude an adult using a direct payment to pay for care from a close family member “living in the same household”. However, a council can make an exception where it decides this is necessary.
18. The Care Act 2014 requires councils to keep care and support plans under review. Government guidance says councils should review plans at least every 12 months.

The key facts

Background

19. Mr D experienced life-changing injuries following an accident in his adult years, which left him with care needs. Miss C was not his carer to begin with and she told me he first received care from various individuals and agencies over several years, with mixed results. But following concerns with his care, Mr D asked for Miss C to support him as someone he trusted. The Council supported this change, and Mr D used direct payments for his care to pay Miss C as his carer. When she took on that role Miss C gave up her previous employment, taking a significant pay cut in doing so.
20. The events covered by this complaint began in February 2024. The Council provided Mr D with a personal budget to buy 35 hours a week care. A trustee managed his finances and they employed Miss C as Mr D’s carer. The trustee used a company in turn to help them manage the direct payment. The company received the payment. Miss C often liaised direct with the company.
21. Miss C spent time each day with Mr D. She kept her own house nearby. Miss C received payment via the company for 37 hours a week work, not 35. She told me this followed an earlier review of Mr D’s care. She said the Council never confirmed the outcome of the review in writing but had told her over the telephone this is what it agreed.
22. Miss C told me her caring role consisted of supporting Mr D with some of his meals and in particular in accessing the community. She explained how Mr D liked to visit family, take nature walks, volunteer in the community and she supported him in those activities. She also helped him with shopping and taking him to appointments. Miss C explained that because of his injuries, Mr D, needed support when in the community.

The 2024 care and support review

23. In February 2024 the Council began a review of Mr D’s care, completed by an Independence and Wellbeing Practitioner (‘the assessor’). The assessor left notes in both February and March 2024 of their contact with Miss C and Mr D and completed assessment paperwork.
24. These documents detailed Mr D’s care needs and the support offered by Miss C. The assessment noted how over time, since acquiring his injuries, Mr D had become more independent. For example, with his personal care and that he did housework, made drinks and studied in his free time.
25. The assessor found Mr D still needed support with his meals and to access the community, but that he needed less support than previously.
26. They assessor noted some concern Miss C was not taking holiday and there may not be enough funds in Mr D’s direct payment account to cover another carer if she went on leave. The assessor also noted some disagreement between Miss C and Mr D about an activity he might want to try and around day-to-day financial management. They also had a concern about a comment Miss C made about needing to be at Mr D’s home to “open the door”, which she says it misunderstood. The notes twice recorded Mr D’s view that he wanted Miss C to continue to provide his care.
27. The assessor recorded concerns that Mr D and Miss C were “co-dependent” and that Mr D had become “de-skilled”. In addition, a manager recorded a concern Mr D was “not being provided with the best opportunities to develop his independence”.
28. There is no record the assessor discussed any of the concerns set out in paragraph 26 with Miss C or Mr D. However the Council said that its assessor did talk to Mr D about its concerns.

Events following the review

29. The case notes recorded the Council finding Mr D had care needs, “not in line with what he is currently receiving under an exceptional circumstance direct payment”. So, the Council should “explore” how to meet his needs differently to promote independence and “reduce co-dependency”. The Council went on to search for a care agency that could meet Mr D’s care needs. This would be for 16 hours a week care, not 35 hours as previously. During this investigation the Council has said references it making direct payments under “exceptional circumstances” referred to its own policy, not Government guidance. It said its own policy meant it gave extra consideration to all cases where close relatives received payment as carers, not just those living in the same household.
30. The assessor went on to send an email to Miss C (‘the March 2024 email’). This said the Council considered Mr D no longer met “the criteria for the exceptional circumstances rule”. It said Mr D did not need “constant supervision” and he could have “alternative provision proportionate to his need”. The assessor said they were looking into assistive technology and a care package to meet Mr D’s “identified needs”, that would “promote his independence and wellbeing”. The Council says it also contacted Mr D’s trustee to advise it planned to change his care package. But its notes date the record of this call to July 2024, which is when Miss C says the trustee first understood the Council’s position.
31. In April 2024 the Council identified a care agency which it considered could support Mr D and stopped paying money into his direct payment account. Next, Miss C received a call from the care agency asking to assess Mr D’s needs. She sent an email to the assessor on the same day saying she was “totally shocked” by this contact. Miss C said Mr D had made clear he did not want other carers supporting him.
32. In a further email a few days later Miss C said that she had understood the Council may want to reduce Mr D’s care package. But it had not explained that it did not want her to continue as his carer. She reiterated such a change would be against Mr D’s wishes.
33. In response the assessor said that they were arranging for Miss C to receive redundancy pay and they feared Mr D being without care from June 2024. This email also referred to Miss C only providing care to Mr D under the “exceptional circumstances rule”.
34. At the end of April, the company managing Mr D’s direct payment contacted the Council. It said that if it wanted to stop direct payments, it had to ensure Miss C received proper notice. It explained the Council first had to give notice to the Trust, as Miss C’s employer, of its intent to end the direct payment package. The trustee then had to give Miss C notice of its intent to end her employment. And then the Trust had to ensure Miss C received redundancy pay in line with her service. The Council went on to reinstate direct payments for May and part of June 2024 only.
35. In early May 2024 the Council recorded Miss C preventing the care agency assessing Mr D's care needs. Miss C told me Mr D did not want his care needs to change. He asked her to pass on his views. Around this time there was discussion between Miss C and the assessor, where they told Miss C the Council might refer Mr D’s case to its adult safeguarding team. It says this was because of a concern that it was ending direct payments with no alternative in place. Miss C described to me the stress and worry this caused her, believing it might prevent her having contact with Mr D.
36. By the end of the month, Mr D, following some persuasion from Miss C, agreed to the care agency providing care to him as a trial. Mr D sent an email to the Council, which it acknowledged, that said he would only do so for two weeks to begin with.
37. So, in mid-June 2024 the Council arranged for a care agency to begin providing Mr D with 16 hours a week care. A care and support plan the Council prepared identified the agency would visit every day to help prepare a meal for Mr D and provide some support for him to access the community. Miss C says the Council never sent a copy of the care and support plan to her or Mr D, despite them requesting this in the email sent at the end of May.
38. A week after it went into place the care agency reported Mr D had cancelled its weekend callouts. Another week later the care agency reported Mr D cancelling more visits. It also said that its care workers did not always have tasks to do after preparing his meal, as Mr D would usually take a lie down. The Council recorded Mr D “not using [the] care package for how it was intended”.
39. Next, Miss C contacted the Council saying that Mr D had only accepted the package for two weeks and that was now at an end. The Council said it had not agreed this.
40. At the start of July 2024 Mr D sent an email to the Council saying, “I don’t want any more carers and I don’t care about direct payments”. He said wanted to “get on with my life how I want”. The Council cancelled the care package. Since when, Mr D has only received informal, unpaid care from Miss C.
41. While these events unfolded, there was continuing correspondence between the Council and the company which managed Mr D’s direct payment account, about the payment due to Miss C for her redundancy. The Council sent its first calculation in June 2024, which was wrong. It corrected the amount in July. Later in January 2025, the company advised of a mistake in its earlier calculation. The Council agreed and subsequently made a further payment to cover this in March 2025.

Miss C’s complaint

42. Miss C went on to complain about the events above. In its first reply, sent in July 2024, the Council recognised the Care Act 2014 did not prevent family members receiving direct payments. But said it had only agreed she could be Mr D’s carer in “exceptional circumstances”. The Council said it accepted it was “difficult” for Miss C to receive notice but that it found Mr D needed less care than previously. It said its March 2024 email had discussed changes to Mr D’s care package and given notice that her support would end. It said Mr D had been “open” to receiving care from an agency instead. It defended discussing the possibility of referring Mr D's case to its safeguarding team, because Miss C had declined the care agency visiting or assessing Mr D. And that it had agreed to review Mr D’s care from the agency after six weeks, not two weeks. It implied the Council may reconsider if Mr D still needed care and support but that it would not reinstate a direct payment.
43. Miss C escalated her complaint. She pointed to correspondence between the company administering direct payments and the Council around her notice period. She said the March 2024 email did not tell her employment would end and the Council did not discuss this when reviewing Mr D’s care package.
44. In its second reply, the Council again defended the March 2024 email although it did recognise that some of its communications were “confusing”. It said its assessor had concern Mr D “was not being afforded the opportunity to make his own decisions”. It said the users of its care services “are involved as much as possible with the planning of any service”.
45. The response did not signpost Miss C to this office. The Council has said this is because under its complaint policy, senior officers can “follow-up” when someone escalates their complaint. Miss C did so here, repeating the Council had not acted in accord with Mr D’s wishes. She raised concerns about the carers employed by the agency saying they did not usually prepare fresh meals, spent time on their phones and on one occasion fell asleep during their time with Mr D.
46. In its final reply, the Council again apologised its communications were not clearer but defended its assessment. It said that it found Miss C’s care “no longer suitable” for Mr D’s needs. It said it had asked the care agency to respond to her concerns about Mr D’s care workers and pointed out they used phones to record case notes. It repeated it would not reinstate direct payments for Mr D as “his care and support needs had changed”.

My findings

47. I considered each part of Miss C’s complaint in turn.

The complaint about the decrease in care hours

48. The decrease in Mr D’s care hours, which took effect in June 2024, followed the Council’s review of his care needs which completed in March 2024. I could see why that review prompted the Council to question the extent of care Mr D needed. It found Mr D independent with some of his day to day living.
49. But while I could follow the general ‘direction of travel’ of the assessment, I could not find a clear audit trail which explained how the Council decided on halving the personal budget Mr D received. In particular, I found there was little reasoning around Mr D’s need to have support in the community contained in the social work notes or assessment paperwork.
50. There was no record the assessor discussed their intentions with Mr D or Miss C during the face-to-face assessment. And the email sent to Miss C in March 2024 contained inadequate explanation. It said Mr D did not need ‘constant supervision’, but a 35hour a week care package never provided for that. It implied Mr D could manage with a more ‘proportionate’ package, but did not explain what that was.
51. Without adequate reasoning, I had to find fault with the outcome of the assessment.
52. I could not say that if the Council had taken this decision without fault, it would have necessarily come to a different view on the number of hours care Mr D needed. But I considered the absence of proper reasoning and communication caused Mr D distress. This was because of the uncertainty about whether such a significant decrease in Mr D’s care package would have taken place, but for the fault.

The complaint about the cancelling of direct payments

53. A second result of the review of Mr D’s care and support needs was the Council decided to cancel Mr D’s direct payments.
54. The Council began from a presumption that Miss C could only be the beneficiary of Mr D’s direct payments in “exceptional circumstances”. I found it fundamentally misunderstood the law and guidance here, which was a fault. As I explained in paragraphs 15 and 16 there is a clear distinction between adults needing and giving care who live in the same household and those who live in different households. It is the former which the Government says should only receive direct payments in exceptional circumstances, as the Council considers necessary. But the guidance makes clear there is no presumption against family members receiving direct payments when they live in different households, as applied here.
55. This is not to say the Council could not have extra checks in place for those cases. But in both its emails to Miss C and complaint responses the Council had confused the tests set out in the guidance, something I found concerning given senior managers replied to Miss C’s complaints.
56. But worse in my view was what this complaint implied about the Council’s attitude towards Mr D as an adult needing care. As I also quoted above, Government guidance stresses the need for care planning to be a collaboration between the Council and person needing care. The person’s wishes must be at the front and centre of the Council’s approach. This is first when deciding how the person wants to receive their personal budget, giving them the right to a direct payment. And second, if they receive a direct payment in deciding what to use those payments for.
57. Here, Mr D clearly made it known to the assessor whom he wanted to provide his care and that was Miss C. It was not the case as the Council later claimed, he was “open” to receiving care from an agency instead. The Council gave him no choice in the matter. It did not take account of his wishes before embarking on a search for a care agency. That was a fault.
58. This not to say the Council could not have discussed with Mr D any concerns it had about the direct payment arrangement. But there is no record the Council had that conversation with Mr D, despite it claiming this happened. Clearly, it did not put any concerns in writing. The email of March 2024 which claimed to explain the rationale for what followed, was inadequate for that purpose also. That too was a fault.
59. The Council must have realised it had failed to involve Mr D in its care planning, when it received Miss C’s complaint. But rather than use the complaint procedure to put matters right and offer explanation for its actions, the Council did neither. It told Miss C it no longer considered her care suitable, but did not explain to her or Mr D why this was. That was a further fault.
60. As part of my investigation, I tried to understand what prompted the Council to act as it did. I can see why, when Mr D had control over many of his day-to-day needs, it questioned if there was more he could do. It could reasonably ask, if Miss C ‘held him back’ at all, in becoming more independent or undermined his autonomy to make decisions around his care.
61. The assessor recorded some difference between Miss C and Mr D about a potential activity Mr D said he might enjoy. The assessment may also have revealed some tension over day-to-day management of Mr D’s money. And there was the disputed comment Miss C made about being in Mr D’s home to ‘open the door’ for visitors.
62. But I considered this evidence too flimsy for the Council to form the view Miss C and Mr D had an unhealthy co-dependency. Or that Miss C ‘de-skilled’ Mr D.
63. This latter conclusion did not consider those contrary observations made by the assessor. They noted how well Mr D managed some of his own care. They described him doing as much as he could for himself and keen to fill his time with activity and interests, that he self-directed as much as possible. So, I could see no justification for the Council considering Miss C an unsuitable carer for Mr D. Its judgement to the contrary did not take all relevant considerations into account. That too was a fault.
64. The other factor relevant to the Council’s actions, was its concern around management of Mr D’s direct payments. I could understand it questioning the hours of pay Miss C received. But Miss C explained to me why she believed she was to provide 37 hours not 35 hours care for Mr D. The Council did not ask her the same question and so did not explore what record it had of explaining its previous decision to Miss C, Mr D or the trustee.
65. The emails from the company managing the direct payment also questioned the Council’s competence in servicing the direct payment account. I chose not to explore these in detail in this investigation, as I did not consider all the points raised central to the events at the crux of the complaint. But I noted a lack of curiosity by the Council, to look into what the company said. All of which led me to find the Council at fault, for assuming Miss C acted improperly.
66. I also understood the undesirability of there being no contingency arrangements for the direct payment should Miss C have wanted to take leave or become ill. But I could not see this provided grounds for the Council taking the approach it did.
67. The impact of the faults above was the Council caused both Mr D and Miss C avoidable distress. That was an injustice.
68. In addition, I also considered these faults contributed to Mr D’s decision to cancel his care in July 2024. I found his email to the Council stopping his care was not the voice of someone saying they did not need care. Instead, it was the voice of someone frustrated the Council did not listen to him.
69. Afterwards, Miss C continued to provide care for Mr D without pay. But I did not consider this showed Mr D no longer had care needs. Nor that it could regard Miss C as willing and able to perform an unpaid care role. I therefore recommended the Council offer to reassess Mr D’s care needs, which it agreed.
70. Should the assessment complete, and if it finds Mr D still has eligible care needs, the Council can consider the care Miss C currently provides, but only when undertaking care and support planning. Only at that point can it consider how “willing and able” Miss C is to continue an unpaid caring role. And if the Council decides it must meet some or all of Mr D’s eligible care needs, it must involve him in decisions about how he wants to receive his personal budget. If Mr D indicates a preference for a direct payment then there should be no presumption that Miss C cannot be his paid carer, if this too is something Mr D wants.
71. In addition, I also recommended action the Council should take to remedy a period of 12 months (i.e. up to June 2025) when Mr D had no care package in place. But for the fault I considered on balance he would have had a care package in place, although probably for fewer hours than before. Mr D continued to receive unpaid care, so he experienced limited injustice. But he still experienced some distress and only had his care needs met because Miss C continued her role informally and without pay.
72. I considered on balance but for the fault Miss C would not have found herself in this position. There was no reason for me to find she could not have continued to be the beneficiary of a direct payment paid to Mr D. Her injustice was that she potentially lost income in this time. However, I had to also take account that she potentially benefited financially from a redundancy payment that she would not have received otherwise. The Council accepted my recommendation she should receive a symbolic payment for her distress. This was greater than we usually recommend for distress, to take account of its severity and duration.

The complaint Miss C did not receive proper notice

73. Because Mr D’s trust employed Miss C, the responsibility to serve her with the correct notice if direct payments ended, rested with the trustee not the Council. However, for the trustee to do that, relied in turn in the Council serving proper notice on the trust.
74. The Council failed to do that. The Council considered its March 2024 email gave Miss C notice of its intent to change Mr D’s care arrangements. But I explained above that I did not find this was so, based on a straightforward reading of its content. But even if I had agreed this meaning, the Council still needed to contact the trust about the direct payments. Even if it spoke to the trustee in March, which Miss C disputes, it needed to make clear its intentions in writing so the trustee and company managing the direct payments knew what to do.
75. I found the Council combined this failure to notify the correct party with a failure to work out what the trust would owe Miss C as its employee. Even after the company told the Council it had matters wrong, I could find no clear audit trail showing it had stepped back and tried to calculate the correct payment due. So, as well as its fault surrounding its decision to end the direct payment to Mr D, the Council was at fault for not ensuring it followed the correct process in doing so.
76. The consequence for Miss C was that she had further distress as uncertainty, as the Council stopped and then re-started the payments. And then three times had to re-calculate the final payment it owed her. I recognised the final recalculation only followed the company contacting it to advise it made an error in its earlier calculation. But I considered that too may have been avoidable but for the earlier mistakes where the company used time and effort explaining to the Council what it had got wrong. So, I did not consider the Council shared responsibility for that error also.

The complaint the Council threatened safeguarding procedures

77. The term ‘safeguarding’ refers to a procedure the Council will follow any time it has a concern that an adult with care needs might have suffered significant harm or be at risk of the same. While it can encompass concerns that someone causes deliberate harm to an adult with care needs, it does not automatically imply anyone is at fault or to blame. It covers many circumstances, including times when an adult is at risk because of circumstances beyond theirs or anyone else’s immediate control.
78. However, those unfamiliar with social care may not know this. And said in certain contexts, a suggestion the Council will refer a case ‘to safeguarding’, may well cause distress to carers. Especially if there is any suggestion their actions may contribute to such a referral. Because it carries the implication they are not acting in the best interest of the person they care for.
79. That does not mean there is any inherent flaw in the Council making such a comment. The distress of a carer cannot take precedent over the needs of the adult with care needs. But the Council should always measure the impact of its words, especially if someone may not have a grasp of what safeguarding means in practice.
80. In this case I can see why the Council mentioned the possibility of a safeguarding referral. If Mr D was without care, this could well put him at risk of significant harm, if no-one could provide him with meals, access to the community and so on.
81. But while I could see the reason for the comment, I could not ignore the context in which it was made. The only reason Mr D’s care package approached the cliff-edge when it would stop, was because of the Council’s actions in stopping his direct payment. This was a flawed decision as I have explained.
82. Further, when Miss C contacted the Council to say Mr D did not want the care agency to visit, she communicated his wishes. As I have also explained above, the Council had wrongly ignored these. It had failed to engage Mr D in discussion around why it thought he needed a change in his care package.
83. So, the only reason the Council found itself thinking about referring Mr D’s case to its safeguarding team was because of its own faults. Had it stepped back to consider this, it would have put those faults right and not caused needless distress to both Miss C and Mr D. So, the Council was at fault for suggesting it would make such a referral. And the avoidable distress was a further injustice for both Miss C and Mr D.

The complaint about the care agency

84. I did not find the Council agreed to the care agency only providing care to Mr D for two weeks, as a trial. However, Mr D made clear before the care started this is what he wanted and this is why he agreed to the agency starting visits. The Council failed to engage with that. If it expected Mr D to accept the care for longer before it reviewed it – say, after four weeks or six – then it needed to tell him that and explain why. But it did not, therefore leading Mr D reasonably to believe that it accepted his proposal. This was both another failure of communication and another example of the Council ignoring Mr D’s wishes. It was a fault. It caused him unnecessary distress, which was a further injustice.
85. In considering how the care agency met Mr D’s care needs, I accepted the care Mr D received, especially over meal preparation and cooking, was not to the same level Miss C provided. But this did not mean it failed to meet Mr D’s need for nutrition. I could also see at times care workers may not have known what to do, if it was Mr D’s habit to rest after a meal rather than immediately go out. I also could not make any finding on the suggestion individual care workers spent time on their mobile phones inappropriately. Or that one fell asleep during a call-out.
86. As I explained in paragraph 3 we consider the Council responsible for the actions of its contractors. I accepted Miss C did not raise concerns about the contractor when she and Mr D first complained. So, this provided some justification for the Council asked the care provider to look into Miss C’s concerns first.
87. But I found it did not make its oversight role clear. It should have ensured it provided Miss C with the outcome of the care provider’s investigation or invited her to revert to it, if she remained dissatisfied following the provider’s reply. Not doing so was a fault.
88. Another fault in the Council’s complaint handling in this case was its failure to refer Miss C to this office sooner. On our website we publish advice for councils on responding to complaints about adult social care Adult Social Care Complaints, Reviews and Appeals: A good practice guide for local authorities - Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. We note that Government regulations “set out a single stage complaints procedure”. We say: “this means that people who raise complaints should not have to navigate multiple complaints stages to get a final response from the Council”.
89. The Council’s complaint policy is not significantly different from this advice. It allows social care staff a brief opportunity to resolve a complaint before investigating if the complainant remains dissatisfied. But it does not allow for a third stage, despite what the Council said during the investigation.
90. I considered the faults identified here caused a smaller, but still significant, further injustice to Miss C. The Council put her to additional, unnecessary time, trouble and frustration in pursuing her complaint. This was over and above the time and trouble inherent in making a complaint.

Back to top

Agreed Action

Personal remedy

91. To remedy the injustice caused to Miss C and Mr D that I have identified above, I the Council has agreed that within 20 working days of this decision, it will:
1. provide an apology to both Miss C and Mr D, accepting the findings of this investigation, taking account of the advice at paragraph 92 below;
2. make a symbolic payment to Mr D of £800 (for explanation see paragraph 93);
3. make a symbolic payment to Miss C of £1550 (for explanation see paragraph 93);
4. offer to undertake a fresh assessment of Mr D’s care needs, to begin within the following 20 working days. In making its offer, the Council will make clear that it accepts the principles set out in paragraph 70 above. If Mr D agrees to the assessment, the Council will assign this to a qualified social worker with no involvement in the events covered by this complaint. Their line manager too, will have had no previous involvement in the case.
92. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making the apology agreed.
93. The symbolic payments agreed, take account of our guidance on remedies. I calculated the payments as follows:

• for the distress caused to Mr D by the inadequate reasoning provided to explain the reassessment of his care, £300;
• for the distress caused to Mr D by the decision to end his direct payments, £250;
• for the distress caused to Miss C by the decision to end Mr D’s direct payments and the failure to end those payments correctly, £1000 and £300 respectively;
• for the distress caused to Miss C and Mr D by the inappropriate suggestion the Council would refer this case to its safeguarding team, £150 each;
• for the distress caused to Mr D by the Council failing to engage with his wish the care agency work on a two-week trial only, £100;
• for the frustration, time and trouble caused to Miss C by mistakes in the Council’s complaint handling, £100.

Service improvements

94. I also wanted the Council to learn lessons from this complaint and make improvements to its services. It has agreed, that within three months of this decision, it will:
1. arrange a briefing for all staff who carry out assessments of care needs to cover the importance of keeping a clear audit trail of decisions where the assessor considers a reduction in care appropriate. This will also cover the importance of setting out clearly to the users of services why the Council believes any reduction in care appropriate;
2. arrange a briefing also for all staff who draw up care and support plans. This will cover the importance of involving users of services in producing or reviewing those plans. Their views on what they want in their support plan must be recorded, including how they want to receive their personal budget. And, if choosing to receive direct payments what they want the payments to purchase. Care and support plans must always be shared with the user of services and a record kept of this;
3. arrange a briefing also for all staff responsible for arranging, reviewing or advising on direct payments. This will cover circumstances where a relative can be paid for providing care, including where this is only permissible in exceptional circumstances. It will also cover circumstances where the Council can stop direct payments as well as the practicalities of doing so. This will include establishing who is responsible for administering the direct payment, notice periods and so on;
4. review its current arrangements for responding to adult social care complaints to ensure they meet the expectations of this office set out on our website, including where complaints are made about contracted care services. It will write to us and tell us if it has taken any action further to that review such as revising any of the content of the relevant procedure or briefing relevant staff on its content.
95. The briefings set out above can be in person, or in writing. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

96. For reasons set out above I upheld this complaint finding fault by the Council caused injustice to Miss C and Mr D. The Council accepted these findings and agreed action to remedy that injustice. Consequently, I could complete my investigation satisfied with its response.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman