Summary The Council was at fault for the delay in providing overnight respite care for Mr Y and for failing to properly investigate and respond to all of Ms X's complaints about the respite provider. As a result, Ms X was left without the benefit of overnight respite for a prolonged period and experienced additional stress, frustration and uncertainty.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to arrange alternative respite care for her adult son, Mr Y after she withdrew him from a previous respite care provider.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

How I considered this complaint

4. I have:

• considered the complaint and discussed it with Ms X;
• considered the Council’s complaint response;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the responses;
• considered relevant legislation;
• offered Ms X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this document, and considered the comments made.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

5. A council must carry out an assessment of any adult who seems to need care and support. 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 appropriate their carer or any other person they might want involved. (Care Act 2014, section 9). Having identified eligible needs through a needs assessment, the council has a duty to meet those needs. (Care Act 2014, section 18)
6. If a council decides a person is eligible for care, it must prepare a care and support plan. This must set out the needs identified in the assessment. The care and support plan should consider what 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. The support plan must include a personal budget, which is the money the council has worked out it will cost to arrange the necessary care and support for that person.

7. Respite care may be needed to enable a carer to look after their own health and wellbeing and to take a break. It should be considered a service provided to the cared-for person. (Care and support Statutory Guidance (CSSG) paragraph 11.39)
8. If a council decides a person is eligible for care, it should prepare a care and support plan which specifies the needs the council is going to meet and how this will be done. (Care Act 2014, sections 24 and 25)
9. The care and support plan must set out a personal budget. A personal budget is a statement which specifies the cost to the local authority of meeting eligible needs, the amount a person must contribute and the amount the council must contribute. (Care Act 2014, section 26)
10. A personal budget can be taken as a direct payment (DP). A DP is a cash payment to be used to purchase care and support to meet needs

Background

11. Mr Y is in his early twenties with learning disabilities and autism described as severe. He lives at home with his parents.
12. Throughout his school years, Mr Y attended a school specialising in special educational needs. In addition, he received support from Children’s Social Services, which included six nights of respite care per month and 32 hours of one-to-one support at a children’s day centre during school holidays.
13. Mr Y was referred to the Council’s adult transition team on 22 February 2022, aged 17, whilst still in receipt of support from children’s services
14. A social worker was allocated in July 2022 to complete a transitional assessment. The assessor recorded “[Mr Y] requires a package of support when he turns 18. His family would find it difficult to manage his needs at home without support. [Mr Y’s] adult care and support plan needs to mirror and reflect his children's care package where possible”. 
15. During a social worker’s visit to Mr Y’s home in August 2022 respite options were discussed with Ms X, Ms X informed the social worker that she believed that a nearby adult respite unit was not suitable for Mr Y. A Continuing Healthcare (CHC) checklist was completed and submitted to the NHS Integrated Care Board (ICB) in December 2022.
16. In December 2022, the social worker submitted a request to the Council’s short breaks panel for 72 nights of respite care. The panel declined the request because it exceeded its maximum allocation of 56 nights under its short breaks policy. The Council says officers discussed the alternative of a shared care arrangement with the family, but this was declined. The family agreed to accept 56 nights of short breaks.
17. In January 2023, the short breaks panel approved 56 nights of respite. At the time there were no commissioned placements available, and Mr Y was placed on a waiting list. An alternative placement at a respite facility was offered but declined by the family.
18. The outcome of the NHS CHC screening concluded Mr Y was not eligible for NHS CHC funding.
19. Ms X removed Mr Y from his school a few months before the final summer term ended because a placement became available in a day centre that Mr X had attended for many years as a child on a Saturday.
20. When Mr Y turned 18 in February 2023, the respite care he had received through children's services came to an end. While awaiting an overnight respite placement, he began attending the day centre in March 2023. By July 2023, he was attending five days a week.
21. The Council says that during the ten months Mr Y was waiting for a respite placement, it carried out extensive searches for suitable provision. In June 2023, it increased Mr Y's priority on the short breaks waiting list to the highest level.
22. A respite placement became available in October 2023, and Mr Y began attending.
23. In August 2024, Ms X raised concerns about the care Mr Y was receiving at the respite facility. She said he was returning home unkempt and she believed he was not receiving enough social stimulation or opportunities to access the community.
24. The records show a social worker visited the respite facility on 7 August 2024 to discuss these concerns. Following the visit, the social worker liaised with the learning disability health team. On 19 August 2024, the social worker contacted Ms X and suggested a meeting with the respite provider.
25. Ms X raised further concerns with both the respite provider and the Council in September 2024 and again in January 2025. She believed staff were being dishonest and covering up events. She says that over the New Year period she received a telephone call informing her that Mr Y had been aggressive towards staff and other service users, so she collected him a day early. Ms X says that, when she arrived, a member of staff told her about a verbal exchange they had overheard between Mr Y and two male members of staff, which caused concern. Ms X asked to speak to the manager, but the manager was not on site. She asked the manager to contact her. The manager later telephoned Ms X, who explained what she had been told by the staff member. The manager said the matter would be investigated.
26. The respite provider carried out an internal investigation. Following this, the manager confirmed there had been an incident involving Mr Y and two male members of staff on New Year's Eve. The manager also confirmed that both members of staff no longer worked at the service. Mr Y continued to attend the respite placement.
27. In March 2025, Ms X raised further concerns about the standard of care Mr Y was receiving. Following this, the social worker contacted the learning disability health hub and arranged a multidisciplinary meeting. During the meeting Ms X confirmed she was happy for Mr Y to continue attending the respite placement for the time being but asked the social worker to look for an alternative provider. The Council also offered additional support in the home. Ms X declined this, explaining she did not believe it would help because Mr Y was so attached to her that he would not engage easily with other people in the home.
28. Mr Y's day centre placement was suspended in May 2025 because of an increase in his challenging behaviour. Ms X reported that he had become increasingly anxious following the incident at the respite facility over the New Year period.
29. On 29 May 2025, Ms X contacted the social worker to raise concerns about the way the respite provider was managing Mr Y's medication. She said she had sent 4ml of medication with Mr Y, but he returned with 8ml, which she disposed of because she was concerned it may have been tampered with. The Council says the respite provider reported that Ms X had decanted liquid medication from the original dispensed bottle into another container for Mr Y to take to respite. Ms X strongly disputes this. She says she simply measured the amount of medication remaining in the original bottle before returning it to that bottle, as required by the medication form and in the same way she had always done. She says she has managed Mr Y’s medication safely since he was three years old and believes the Council wrongly blamed her for issues arising from the respite provider's actions.
30. The Council says this did not comply with the respite provider's medication policy. The records show the social worker sought advice from the ICB's CHC nurse, who confirmed the respite provider had acted correctly because the medication was a controlled drug and should only be administered from the original pharmacy-dispensed bottle showing the current date, dosage and administration instructions. In June 2025, the social worker relayed this advice to Ms X and sought to arrange an urgent review meeting. Ms X declined to attend and later that day told the social worker she wished to end the respite placement and asked the Council to find an alternative respite provider.
31. Ms X says that in June 2025 the social worker emailed her a list of respite providers and suggested she contact them to ask about availability. Ms X did not believe this was her responsibility.
32. Mr Y began attending a new day centre five days a week. The Council also continued to look for alternative respite provision.
33. Ms X says that being without overnight respite care caused her significant stress because she provides Mr Y with 24-hour care and support, and he can display very challenging behaviour, including physical aggression.
34. The Council identified a new respite placement, and Mr Y's first stay took place in January 2026. Ms X raised concerns about the cleanliness of the facility and said it lacked smoke detectors, which she says she reported to the Council. She also said communication with staff was poor. Ms X asked the Council to properly investigate the numerous complaints she had made about the respite provider.
35. In July 2026, the respite provider gave the Council 28 days' notice to end the placement, citing an irretrievable breakdown in the relationship with the family and stated both it, and Ms X did not wish to resolve the issues. Mr Y is currently without respite care.
36. The Council says respite capacity within its area is extremely limited, so it widened its search to include out-of-area placements. It says Mr Y's placement at the original respite facility was initially placed on hold rather than cancelled so that it remained available in the event of an emergency while an alternative placement is being sought.

Ms X’s formal complaint and the Council’s response

37. Ms X made a formal complaint to the Council in September 2025. In its complaint response, dated 15 September 2025, the Council acknowledged that adult respite care was not available when Mr Y turned 18. It said Mr Y had been placed on the waiting list with a high priority and that a placement became available ten months later. It also acknowledged there were insufficient respite placements in its area, resulting in a waiting list. It said it was working to increase capacity. It upheld this part of the complaint and acknowledged the delay had caused additional stress for Ms X and her family.
38. The Council also acknowledged the concerns Ms X raised about the quality of care provided at the respite placement. It said officers had recommended meetings to try to resolve the issues, but Ms X had declined these. The Council accepted that the concerns had contributed to Mr Y no longer attending the respite placement but said a review meeting could have provided an opportunity to address the issues and support the continuation of the placement. It partially upheld this part of the complaint, acknowledging that Ms X's concerns had not been adequately addressed. It also noted that Ms X had declined another respite placement because it was operated by the same provider as the original service, and the two members of staff who had been the subject of her previous complaint worked there.
39. The Council said it held no records showing that a social worker had advised Ms X to find a respite placement herself. However, it accepted this should not happen and confirmed that identifying suitable respite provision is the Council's responsibility. It apologised that Ms X felt this responsibility had been placed on her.
40. The Council said it would be beneficial to arrange a meeting with the newly allocated social worker and a team manager to discuss Ms X's concerns about the respite services and consider how similar issues could be avoided in future.
41. The Council identified the following learning points from its complaint investigation:

• Where there are concerns raised regarding support, reviews should be actioned with greater urgency.
• Communication between the learning disability teams and care providers can be improved to improve outcomes for service users.
• The challenges regarding insufficient capacity in our short breaks services will continue to be raised through all appropriate channels, and the learning disability teams will take responsibility for exploring alternative ways in which respite needs are met.

42. Ms X remained dissatisfied with the Council's response and brought her complaint to this office in September 2025.

Current situation

43. Mr Y is currently without respite care. Ms X says there are two local residential services which may be able to provide respite. Staff from both services are due to visit Mr Y at his day centre in the coming weeks to assess whether they can meet his needs.

Analysis

44. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide the entitlement and level of a person’s social care needs. The Ombudsman’s role is to establish if the Council has assessed a person’s needs properly.
45. The Care Act 2014 places a duty on councils to assess eligible care and support needs and, where those needs meet the eligibility criteria, to arrange appropriate services. This includes respite care where it forms part of meeting an adult's eligible needs. Councils should keep care and support arrangements under review and respond appropriately where concerns are raised about commissioned services.
46. There is no dispute that Mr Y experienced a gap in overnight respite care when he moved from children's to adult services. The Council accepts that the respite care provided through children's services ended when Mr Y turned 18 in February 2023 and that it was unable to provide adult respite care until October 2023, around ten months later. The Council upheld this aspect of Ms X's complaint and accepted the delay caused additional stress to Ms X and the family.
47. I recognise the Council's explanation that there was a shortage of respite placements in its area and that it carried out extensive searches for suitable provision. The records also show it increased Mr Y's priority on the waiting list to the highest level. Limited capacity does not remove the Council's responsibility to ensure eligible needs are met. Where there is a delay in providing a service identified as necessary, the Council should consider what alternative arrangements can reasonably be put in place to meet those needs. The Council offered one-to-one support for Mr Y within the home, but Ms X declined this because she said Mr Y would not engage with support staff.
48. The evidence shows that the Council considered and offered several alternatives while Mr Y was waiting for overnight respite, including a residential respite placement which was equivalent to overnight respite. Ms X declined this placement because of its proximity to the family home, which she considered unsuitable. However, the Council did not ensure that suitable alternative arrangements were put in place following that refusal, or otherwise adequately address Mr Y’s assessed needs, including the need to provide Ms X with a break from her caring role, during the ten-month delay. I therefore find fault in the Council’s failure to ensure that suitable respite arrangements were available during this period. This caused Ms X avoidable distress and uncertainty, and I do not consider an apology alone to be an adequate remedy.
49. Once the respite placement began, Ms X repeatedly raised concerns about the quality-of-care Mr Y received. These included concerns about his presentation when returning home, the activities available to him, an incident involving two members of staff, and the provider's management of his medication.
50. In relation to the medication issue, Ms X strongly disputes that she handled Mr Y's medication incorrectly. However, the records show the Council sought advice from an appropriate clinical professional, who confirmed the respite provider had acted in accordance with the requirements for administering a controlled drug. It was reasonable for the Council to rely on that professional advice. I have therefore seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on this issue. That does not mean Ms X deliberately tampered with the medication; rather, I have not found evidence the Council acted improperly by seeking and relying on specialist advice.
51. The Council accepted, through its complaint process, that Ms X's concerns about the respite placement were not fully addressed and partially upheld this aspect of her complaint. It also identified learning regarding the timeliness of reviews and communication between its teams and providers. While the evidence shows the Council repeatedly offered meetings which Ms X chose not to attend, the responsibility to investigate and address concerns did not depend solely on her attendance. The Council remained under a duty to consider and respond appropriately to the issues raised. Ms X's decision not to attend meetings does not remove the Council's responsibility to address her concerns properly.
52. Ms X says a social worker told her to find a respite placement herself. The Council acknowledges that responsibility for identifying suitable placements rests with the Council rather than service users or their families. This office notes the Council's acknowledgement that sourcing respite provision is its responsibility.
53. Following the breakdown of the respite placement, the Council continued to look for alternative provision and identified a further placement for Mr Y. I acknowledge the significant shortage of respite provision available; however, the Council remains under a continuing duty to take reasonable steps to meet Mr Y's eligible assessed needs. Ms X has been left without the benefit of respite care despite it having been assessed as necessary to support her caring role. This has caused her additional stress, frustration and uncertainty.

Back to top

Agreed Action

54. Within one month of my final decision, the Council should:

• apologise to Ms X for the delay in providing overnight respite care following Mr Y's transition to adult services and for failing to adequately consider alternative ways of meeting his assessed respite needs during that period;
• make a symbolic payment of £500 to Ms X to acknowledge the avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the ten-month delay in providing overnight respite care; and lack of ongoing respite provision;
• undertake a carers assessment of Ms X;
• Make a symbolic payment of £1,500 to Mr Y in recognition of the loss of the benefit of the overnight respite provision he had been assessed as requiring. The payment should be made to Ms X, who has responsibility for managing his finances.
• review Mr Y's current respite needs and provide Ms X with a written update setting out the action it intends to take to identify suitable respite provision, including any out-of-area options it has considered and, if appropriate, the interim measures it will put in place while a suitable placement is being sought;
• remind relevant staff to investigate and address concerns about respite placements promptly, with clear communication and timely reviews, regardless of whether relatives/ representatives attend meetings.

Back to top

Final Decision

55. I found fault in the Council's delay in providing overnight respite care for Mr Y and in its failure to properly investigate all of Ms X's complaints about the respite providers. This caused additional stress, frustration and uncertainty to Ms X and the family.
56. The above recommendations are a suitable way to settle the complaint.
57. It is on this basis; the complaint will be closed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman