Summary: Mx X complains for Ms Y the Council was at fault in the way it provided her with care and support. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters. So have completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mx X complains for Ms Y there were failings in the way the Council provide care and support to Ms Y. In particular Mx X says the Council:
• Wrongly decided to stop Direct Payments (DPs) to Ms Y to source and pay for her own care at home. Ms Y wants the Council to reinstate her DPs and support her to employ a personal assistant (PA).
• Did not contact her for long periods of time and reacted unfairly when Ms Y criticised her social worker. Ms Y wants the Council to remove the need for two officers to attend for home visits and to change her social worker.
• Unfairly insisted on a deep clean of Ms Y’s property as a condition to receiving care and support in her home. And did not consider making any reasonable adjustments for her due to her disabilities. Ms Y wants the Council to remove the need for a deep clean before it can provide any care and support.
• Failed to carry out a Care Act assessment on Ms Y and put care in place despite a decline in her mental health and having accidents at her property including a serious foot injury.
• Failed to ensure she had support to have a fridge delivered she has needed for several years.
• Wrongly claimed her relationships with care providers kept breaking down in the past and did not address the problems she had with care providers.
• Refused a request from Ms Y on mental health grounds for a referral to a mortgage help scheme.
• Breached Ms Y’s personal data in a Council response to a complaint.
2. Mx X says Ms Y’s wellbeing has been affected by the lack of action by the Council, she is at risk of losing her property due to mortgage arrears and been caused distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have decided to exercise discretion to investigate Ms Y’s concerns about matters from 2023 despite it being more than 12 months from when Ms Y was aware of the issues. This is because of Ms Y’s vulnerability and circumstances. I have investigated Ms Y’s concerns up to March 2025 when she made her complaint to us. However, I do not consider there are grounds for us to exercise discretion to look at Ms Y’s concerns before 2023 which include the breakdown of relationships with care providers. This is because it is too long ago for us to consider now. And it was open to Ms Y to have complained to us before now about such concerns. I refer to events from 2022 as background information.
7. I have not investigated Ms Y’s concerns the Council has failed to consider the impact of her foot injury and declining mental health. This is because they are new issues for Ms Y to pursue with the Council and to complete the Council’s complaints procedure first.
8. I have not investigated Ms Y’s complaint about a possible breach of breach of data. This is a matter for Ms Y to complain to the Information Commissioner about. I have also not investigated Ms Y’s complaints about mental health issues. These are provided by primary services so Ms Y would need to complain to relevant NHS body. If there is any involvement by the Council Ms Y needs to complain to the Council about it first and complete the complaints procedure.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mx X, Ms Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mx X, Ms Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened in this case

11. What follows is a brief chronology of key events. It does not include all the information I have reviewed during my investigation.
12. Ms Y has physical and mental health conditions and been in contact with the Council for many years. The Council agreed Ms Y needed a care package of 12 hours a week and help with cleaning her property as she found it difficult to keep a habitable home environment. Ms Y’s preference was for her to employ a PA to provide the support using DPs payments which the Council agreed to. Ms Y was being supported by an advocate in her contacts with organisations.
13. The Council recorded Ms Y found it difficult to find and keep care providers and allow access to her property. The Council had previously funded three deep cleans to remove rubbish and thoroughly clean surfaces at the property.
14. The Council reviewed Ms Y’s care and support plan in October 2022. Officers completed the plan in January 2023. Ms Y was assessed as eligible for care and support and needed a care package. This included support to clean the property and find a working fridge. The Council noted it had previously arranged for a charity to fund a fridge, but it could not be delivered into Ms Y’s property due to ‘debris, items and furniture blocking access’. The Council agreed to use a care provider I will refer to as Company B to help Ms X find a PA to help support a deep clean of property and fridge delivery.
15. The Council attempted a deep clean of Ms Y’s property in March 2023 to try and ensure the hallway was clear for a fridge to be delivered. But it could not be completed due to differing expectations of the clean between Ms Y and the provider. The Council noted Ms Y could not find a PA through Company B.

Ms Y’s complaint March 2023

16. In March 2023 Ms Y complained to the Council about the service provided, made negative comments about her social worker and sought a new social worker. A senior officer wrote to Ms Y as they did not agree with the comments about the social worker. And said social workers would now visit Ms Y in pairs to ensure all felt confident in their appointments. The senior officer offered to meet with Ms Y to discuss her concerns and move forward but Ms Y declined to meet.
17. The Council responded to Ms Y’s complaint in June 2023. It clarified the decision to send social workers to Ms Y in pairs was because her statements about the social worker could potentially be professionally damaging to them. The Council said it would not reallocate Ms Y’s case to a different social worker due to pressures on the service.
18. It noted in January 2023 Company B were the proposed care agency and offered Ms Y possible PAs to employ. But reported they had ‘fallen though’ due to lack of response from Ms Y. The Council considered Company B had offered Ms Y a reasonable number of PAs and Company B closed the case as it could not make further offers. The Council noted Ms Y’s concerns it had been challenging to recruit PAs such as the candidate becoming unavailable and unsuitable interview arrangements. Ms Y also disputed Company B’s allegations she had been uncooperative. The Council confirmed Company B had closed Ms Y’s case after sending her seven potential PA’s when it would usually offer three. Company B said it had adapted its service around Ms Y’s changing requirements and preferences.
19. The Council was concerned about Ms Y’s difficulty recruiting PAs for her care so decided to stop her DPs. It had assessed her needs and offered to meet her needs through a deep clean, several different packages of care and offered a DP for her to recruit a PA. As Ms Y declined all those services it needed to consider if there were any other options for support. The Council said it did not have an endless supply of resources so unfortunately could not guarantee it would make any further offers. However, it would review Ms Y’s case and advise of the outcome.
20. The Council reviewed Ms Y’s support in the form of packages of care, direct payments for PAs and cleaning support in September 2023. It concluded this approach to supporting Ms Y was not working so it would not continue to support her in that way. Officers looked to alternative care providers but the previous six providers who had attempted to support Ms X had ended support due to a breakdown in relationships so were unavailable. The Council explained its decision to Ms Y. It said the social worker would review decision regularly and the Council review matters if Ms Y’s circumstances changed.
21. The Council acknowledged Ms Y was seeking support and it had a duty to support her wellbeing. So, would continue to do this, through email communication only as Ms Y requested. The Council said a senior officer would carry out a safeguarding enquiry to see if she was at risk of harm from self-neglect or her home environment. The officer wished to meet with Ms Y to discuss this with her and how it could support her. The Council arranged another advocate for Ms Y as she was without one.
22. The senior officer met with Ms Y and her social worker in December 2023 to discuss the safeguarding enquiry.

Care and Support plan review January 2024

23. Officers reviewed Ms Y’s care and support plan in January 2024 at Ms Y’s request before proceeding with care planning/package of care provision. It noted that despite ongoing work by Ms Y, the Council and several community care providers she continued to be without a package of care. And attempts to find a PA through Company B were unsuccessful.
24. The Council noted it was continuing to look at options. It had opened a s 42 safeguarding enquiry for self-neglect due to ongoing concerns about the habitability of Ms Y’s property, her ability to interact with services and to maintain activities of daily living. Ongoing social work was exploring further options of care, a deep clean and to ensure she had access to white goods at her property. The Council were to facilitate pest control when needed at Ms Y’s property. Officers asked the Council’s Brokerage team to try and find a package of care to put in place before a deep clean as requested by Ms Y. The review notes show Ms Y raised concerns about noisy neighbours, issues with her car and the property management company.
25. In March 2024 the Council agreed a package of care for 12 hours a week. The social worker contacted the direct payments team about Ms Y using DPs again and a charity to fund a fridge freezer. The care records show issues caused by Ms Y failing to provide information on her kitchen and measurements for a fridge.
26. In April 2024 the Direct Payments team raise concerns about Ms Y’s capability to manage DPs and did not support her application to use DPs again. The Council noted Ms Y was asking for care and support to be provided first before a deep clean. It advised most care providers would want to do deep clean first before providing care. The social worker offered to find a care provider who may agree to care first but this would cause delays. Ms Y confirmed to the social worker in May 2024 she wished to find such a care provider. The social worker sent Ms Y the care and support plan review as requested. Ms Y sought further action on a fridge delivery because of difficulties in her measuring the available space in her kitchen.

Safeguarding June 2024

27. The senior officer suggested a further safeguarding meeting in June 2024 with Ms Y and her advocate. Ms Y said she needed to reschedule the meeting due to needing more time. The Council agreed to do so and for Ms Y to advise when ready to meet and offer some dates.
28. The social worker delivered a microwave to Ms Y in July 2024 and suggested arranging for a firm to do the fridge measurements. The social worker reported finding an alternative care provider I will refer to as Company C. Ms Y later reported difficulties in arranging to measure the fridge as the firm attended her property without calling before.
29. In August 2024 Ms Y agreed to pursue Company C as a care provider. Company C visited and assessed Ms Y. The social worker updated Ms Y in September 2024 and offered her a package of support through Company C as the Council had confirmed funding. The social worker also chased Ms X about her choice of fridge again. Ms Y signed with Company C in October 2024 and asked about other fridge options saying those previously discussed were not suitable. Company C told the Council it had staff available for Ms Y but could not begin until a deep clean was completed at the property. Company C confirmed it had staff who could attend the deep clean to offer Ms Y support.
30. In October 2024 the social worker updated Ms Y, suggested she contact the fridge firm directly and for confirmation about the deep clean as Company C was ready to provide the care package. The social worker contacted Ms Y again in November 2024 as she had not responded. Ms Y replied in December 2024 she had a foot injury so unable to have the deep clean before or as any condition of the start of her home care provision or support. Ms Y was no longer willing to have a community care package commissioned by Council and wanted to employ her own PA using DPs. Ms Y was unwilling to accept a deep clean of the property until a community care package or a PA were in place.
31. The Council told Ms Y it would not provide her with DPs to employ a PA, and the property needed a deep clean before Company C could provide any regular care and support. This was to ensure the health and safety of visiting professionals.

Ms Y’s complaint December 2024

32. Mx X acting as an advocate for Ms Y complained to the Council in December 2024 on Ms Y’s behalf.
33. The Council responded to the complaint in January 2025. It explained the action taken to ensure a package of care for Ms Y and confirmed it would not be providing Ms Y with DPs. It explained there were four statutory conditions in the Care Act 2014 for a service user to be eligible to received DPs. These were capacity, willingness, ability to manage and appropriateness. The Council noted Ms Y had previously not managed her DPs properly and had not paid invoices. The Council supported Ms X for one year with a supported bank account, but the situation did not improve. So, the Direct Payments team declined to provide Ms Y with DPs. The Council did not consider Ms Y could manage the DPs under ability to manage and appropriateness. So, it discontinued the DPs to Ms Y in June 2023 for this reason and would not be providing her care through this service.
34. A senior officer contacted Mx X and Ms Y in April 2025 for an update on the support offered and if she intended to accept it. The officer said Company C could no longer offer support due to the time waiting for a response from Ms Y. The officer chased Ms Y again for a reply and said if she did not respond it would close the case.
35. In May 2025 the senior officer closed the safeguarding concern. The safeguarding report noted the officer met with Ms Y several times and communicated through email, telephone calls and Ms Y’s advocate. The officer had no concerns about Ms Y’s ability to understand, retain, use information or communicate her views. The officer considered Ms Y able to understand she had eligible care and support needs. But these were not being met and so adversely impacting on to her physical and mental wellbeing. In addition, Ms Y could understand her situation was ‘self neglect’. And the safeguarding enquiry was to explore and understand the nature of the risks, identify any outcomes she wished to achieve and attempt to support her to mitigate the risk of her experiencing harm.
36. The officer assessed Ms Y as having capacity to make informed choices and being supported by advocates. Ms Y had also sought advice from multiple bodies to help her with other concerns including independent legal advice. The officer noted Ms Y wished to receive personalised care at home to help her complete daily living and domestic tasks. But did not consider Ms Y would experience any immediate significant harm due to environmental hazards at her property. The officer said Ms Y could understand that her needs could be met and the associated risk of harm mitigated though a deep clean and community care package. But Ms Y had chosen not to accept these and did not agree with the way in which her care needs should be met. The officer considered Ms Y had the mental capacity to make the decision. So, her property remained neglected, and she was not receiving any form of care and support.
37. The Council closed Ms Y’s adult social care case in June 2025 as Ms Y did not respond to contact. Ms Y’s care and support plan noted it was not possible to put the package of care in place as Ms Y did not accept the proposed package. This required a deep clean of the property before any care could be put in place.

My assessment

38. The Council has provided evidence and explained its decision to remove Ms Y from receiving DPs as she does not meet the criteria set down by the Care Act 2014. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it has made the decision. This is because it has considered Ms Y’s historic management of DPs and she had also not successfully managed payments despite receiving support. The Council has a duty to protect the public purse, and the decision to stop DPs to Ms Y is one it is entitled to make though I appreciate it is disappointing for Ms Y.
39. The Council has established Company B made a reasonable number of PA offers to Ms Y. It is unfortunate Ms Y had difficulty in recruiting. But the documents show Company B and the Council ensured she was given extra profiles to look at and Company B made efforts to try and adapt to Ms Y’s requirements. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.
40. The Council has provided evidence of the care and support plans written about Ms Y’s care and support needs. So, I am satisfied the Council has carried out Care Act assessments on Ms Y and offered her packages of care. It is unfortunate Ms Y has not been able to accept the packages, but I do not consider the provision has not been made due to any fault by the Council. This is because documents show officers have tried to help Ms Y and it carried out a safeguarding enquiry to establish whether she was being caused harm through self-neglect. The outcome was that Ms Y was found to have capacity to make decisions and to decide not to accept the Council’s offers of care packages.
41. It is unfortunate Ms Y has not felt able to accept them, but I am satisfied the Council has taken suitable action to consider Ms Y’s concerns about the packages and her requirements. The Council has also ensured Ms Y has been supported throughout by advocates to help her. So, there is no evidence of fault. It is ultimately for the Council to decide what is a suitable care and support package for Ms Y and how it is to be provided. I acknowledge Ms Y is unwilling to allow a deep clean of her property before care can be provided. But the Council must also consider the health and safety of those providing the care to Ms Y.
42. The evidence provided shows Council officers have made considerable efforts to try and ensure Ms X has a fridge and other white goods. This was through liaising with charities for funds and companies to deliver the items. And to try and support Ms Y to provide measurements and agree options. It is unfortunate it took time for the white goods to be in place at Ms Y’s property, but I cannot say it is through any fault by the Council.
43. There is no evidence from documents provided to show Council officers delayed unreasonably in contacting Ms Y. The evidence shows officers were in regular contacts with her and her advocates. The Council responded to comments Ms Y made about her social worker. It arranged for two social workers to visit her in the future to ensure some safety for all parties if Ms Y made further allegations. It is unfortunate the Council’s decision for officers to visit in pairs upset Ms Y. But is for the Council to respond in such circumstances and decide on suitable action to take. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Decision

I find fault no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman