Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her care and support needs. We do not find fault in how the Council assessed and met Miss X’s needs, contributed to decisions on her housing situation, responded when her care ended, or in its general communication. We do find fault in the Council’s failure to inform Miss X of changes to her support arrangements in April 2024 and in its initial complaint response, which did not accurately explain what had occurred. However, these faults did not cause Miss X a significant injustice, and no remedy is required.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her care and support needs. She says the Council:
• influenced housing decision-making, which resulted in her remaining in accommodation she should have left;
• reduced her support hours in April 2024 without consulting her;
• failed to provide agreed budgeting support;
• did not take adequate action after her care ended abruptly in February 2025; and
• communicated poorly outside the formal complains process between February and June 2025.
2. Miss X also complained her support workers:
• were unable to assist her with certain paperwork; and
• refused to provide support if they were being filmed.
3. Miss X says she has been neglected by the Council which has impacted her mental and physical health. She also says she has been left with a large bill for care support, some of which she did not receive.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
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. 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)
7. I have investigated Miss X’s complaint that the Council influenced housing decision-making. Although the events occurred in April 2023, Miss X did not become aware of the details in the matter until early 2025, when she received information disclosed as part of a subject access request. I therefore consider there are good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate this aspect of the complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Miss X 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

Relevant law and legislation

Assessment

10. 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.

Charging

11. A council has a duty to arrange care and support for those with eligible needs, and a power to meet both eligible and non-eligible needs in places other than care homes. 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)
12. Where a council has decided to charge for care, it must carry out a financial assessment to decide what a person can afford to pay. It must then give the person a written record of the completed assessment. Councils have no power to assess couples according to their joint financial resources. A council must treat each person individually. A council must not charge more than the cost it incurs to meet a person’s assessed eligible needs.

What happened

13. Miss X has eligible care and support needs and has received support commissioned by the Council since 2022. Prior to the matters complained of, she received eight hours of support per week on a two-to-one basis. This meant she received support from two carers at the same time, resulting in 16 chargeable hours per week. These hours were commissioned flexibly to allow Miss X to use her support to meet her needs as required.
14. In March 2023, Miss X asked the Council for assistance to move accommodation. She raised concerns about the location of the property, her neighbours, the condition and repair of the accommodation, and pest infestation. The Council considered offering Miss X temporary accommodation in a hotel while it addressed the pest issues. Miss X raised concerns about her ability to afford food if placed in a hotel.
15. The Council considered several options to support Miss X. A meeting took place at her home involving housing officers, her social worker, and Miss X. Following this meeting, the Council decided the most appropriate course of action was to address the pest infestation and repairs while Miss X remained in the property, and to pursue a permanent move to a different property in a new area to resolve her wider concerns.
16. The Council completed works to address the pest infestation and condition issues. In summer 2024, Miss X moved to a new permanent property.
17. In mid-2024, Miss X’s support provider contacted the Council to advise it considered Miss X no longer required two-to-one support and could be supported safely on a one-to-one basis. The Council agreed to this change. At the same time, Miss X requested an increase of three additional hours per week to support her to undertake more physical activity. The Council agreed, resulting in a total of 11 hours of support per week on a one-to-one basis.
18. Later in 2024, Miss X contacted the Council to discuss an outstanding debt for care charges. She said she was struggling to manage her finances and was refusing to pay for her care. The Council advised her to use time with her support worker to receive help with budgeting rather than community activities, and Miss X agreed to this approach.
19. In January 2025, after receiving information as part of a subject access request, Miss X complained to the Council. She said the Council had reduced her support hours in April 2024 without telling her, that she had accrued a large debt for care charges, and that she required budgeting support.
20. The Council acknowledged the complaint and confirmed it would place Miss X’s invoices on hold while it investigated.
21. In February, Miss X’s support provider asked the Council to reinstate two-to-one support. It raised concerns about Miss X’s behaviour, including filming and recording staff, and said it was considering giving notice and ending its support.
22. The Council agreed to reinstate two-to-one support. Shortly afterwards, the provider advised it could not continue providing this level of support due to staffing pressures and gave notice to end the service. The Council immediately began contacting alternative providers.
23. Around the same time, Miss X raised further concerns. She said her support workers had refused to help her complete certain paperwork and would not provide support if she filmed them. The Council confirmed it would consider these matters as part of the ongoing complaint.
24. Miss X later added to her complaint after becoming aware, through information disclosed as part of her subject access request, that her social worker had previously expressed concerns in April 2023 about her moving to temporary accommodation. Miss X questioned why the Council had considered it appropriate for her to remain living in accommodation affected by disrepair at that time.
25. Later in February, Miss X’s support provider ended the care package with immediate effect, citing concerns about staff safety.
26. The following day, the Council shared relevant information and risk assessments with a potential new provider. That provider agreed to take on Miss X’s care package and commenced support the following week.
27. During the short gap in her usual support, the Council offered to assist Miss X with her weekly food shopping. Miss X declined this offer and instead arranged online shopping.
28. In March, Miss X asked the Council to increase her support hours and to reduce support back to one-to-one.
29. In April, the Council completed a review of Miss X’s care and agreed an increase in support hours on a two-to-one basis.
30. The Council issued its complaint response. It apologised for failing to inform Miss X of the change to her support arrangements in 2024 and said this had occurred in error. It explained the error had not affected the financial contribution Miss X was assessed to pay. The Council also explained the support provider did not assist with completing debt relief order forms but had signposted Miss X to another service that could provide this help. It confirmed staff would not provide support if they were being filmed. The Council said Miss X’s social worker had supported her housing application in April 2023.
31. Miss X remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint. She said the support provider had failed to provide appropriate support.
32. In June, the Council issued its final response. It said a financial assessment was underway and that invoices remained on hold. It said it had reviewed care records and found the support provider had often delivered support in excess of the commissioned hours. The Council again apologised for not informing Miss X of the change to her support arrangements in 2024.
33. Miss X then complained to the Ombudsman.
34. In response to my enquiries, the Council explained it had considered the short period Miss X was without her usual support, had offered interim assistance, and had prioritised securing a suitable alternative provider.

My findings

Social worker involvement in housing decision-making

35. I have considered the Council’s records from March and April 2023 when Miss X requested assistance to move accommodation. The records show the Council considered short-term temporary accommodation in a hotel while it addressed pest infestation issues, but this option was discussed with Miss X who raised concerns about her finances.
36. The Council held a multi-disciplinary meeting involving housing officers, adult social care, and Miss X. Following this, it decided to address the pest infestation and repair issues while Miss X remained in the property and to pursue a permanent move to resolve the wider issues she had raised.
37. The evidence shows the Council considered Miss X’s wellbeing, her views, and the potential impact of temporary accommodation. The pest infestation was addressed, and Miss X was later offered the next available suitable permanent property, which she accepted.
38. I am satisfied the Council took a reasonable and considered approach, involved adult social care appropriately, and included Miss X in decision-making. I find no fault in adult social care’s actions in relation to housing.

Reduction in support arrangements in April 2024

39. In April 2024, the Council agreed to a request from Miss X’s support provider to reduce support from two-to-one to one-to-one. This reduced the number of chargeable hours from 16 to 8, while the actual hours of support Miss X received remained unchanged.
40. At the same time, the Council agreed to Miss X’s request for an additional three hours of support per week, resulting in a total of 11 hours of support on a one-to-one basis.
41. The Council accepts it failed to clearly inform Miss X of the change to her support arrangements at the time. This was fault. The Council also failed, during its initial complaint investigation, to accurately explain what had changed. This was fault and added to Miss X’s confusion and concern.
42. However, the evidence shows Miss X would have been aware at the time that only one support worker was attending. There is no evidence she raised concerns about this at the time or requested reinstatement of two-to-one support until much later.
43. The Council also reviewed whether Miss X had been overcharged as a result of the change and confirmed she had not been charged more than her assessed contribution.
44. While the Council was at fault for poor communication, I am satisfied this did not result in a significant injustice to Miss X. The Council has acknowledged the error and apologised.

Alleged failure to provide budgeting support

45. Miss X’s care and support plans record that her support workers should assist her with budgeting as part of her eligible needs.
46. The support arrangements were commissioned flexibly, allowing Miss X to decide how best to use her support hours. In September 2024, the Council advised Miss X to prioritise budgeting support during her support hours, and she agreed to do so.
47. The Council provided evidence from the support provider showing extensive support delivered to Miss X, including work consistent with her support plan.
48. Given the flexible nature of the care package and Miss X’s ability to direct how her support was used, I am satisfied she was able to access budgeting support when she chose to do so. I find no fault by the Council in this regard.

Support workers declining to assist with specific paperwork

49. Miss X complained her support workers would not help her complete certain paperwork, including debt relief order forms.
50. The evidence shows the support provider explained it could not assist with completing these forms due to the potential legal and financial consequences if completed incorrectly. The provider appropriately signposted Miss X to another specialist service.
51. I find this was a considered and explained decision and that appropriate alternative support was offered. I find no fault.

Support workers refusing to be filmed

52. Miss X complained that support workers refused to provide support if she filmed them.
53. It is reasonable for care staff to refuse to be filmed while working, particularly where there are concerns about privacy, consent, and staff safety. There is no evidence Miss X required filming as a reasonable adjustment.
54. I find no fault in the actions of the support workers or the Council.

Council’s actions following the abrupt end of care in February 2025

55. When the support provider ended the care package with immediate effect, the Council acted promptly. It identified an alternative provider, shared relevant risk information, organised for them to meet with Miss X, and arranged for care to resume the following week.
56. The Council considered interim risks and offered additional support with food shopping, which Miss X declined.
57. I am satisfied the Council took appropriate steps to minimise disruption and ensure continuity of care. I find no fault.

Council communication outside of the formal complaints process

58. I reviewed correspondence between Miss X and the Council between February and June 2025. The records show the Council responded promptly to her contacts, often on the same day.
59. I find no fault in the Council’s communication outside the formal complaints process.

Cost of care and charging

60. Miss X has undergone several financial assessments since 2022 and has been provided with written confirmation of her assessed contribution.
61. Although Miss X’s support arrangements have changed over time, the cost of the care provided has consistently exceeded her assessed contribution. The Council has confirmed it has not charged her more than it is permitted to charge.
62. I find Miss X remains liable for the outstanding charges and should continue to work with the Council to address the debt.

Conclusion

63. Miss X has raised multiple concerns about the Council’s handling of her care, support, and housing matters. I have considered each element of her complaint separately, taking account of the relevant law, guidance, and the evidence provided.
64. I found fault where the Council failed to clearly inform Miss X of changes to her support arrangements in April 2024 and where its initial complaint responses did not accurately explain what had occurred. However, I am satisfied these faults did not cause Miss X a significant injustice. The level of support provided remained appropriate to her assessed needs, she was not overcharged for her care, and the Council has acknowledged and apologised for its errors.
65. In all other respects, I find the Council acted reasonably and without fault. It appropriately involved adult social care in housing decision-making, responded promptly when Miss X’s care ended unexpectedly, ensured continuity of care, and communicated appropriately both within and outside the formal complaints process.

Back to top

Decision

66. I find fault not causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman