Summary: Mr Y complains the Council failed to replace a psychologist despite having agreed to provide Mr X with one indefinitely and delayed completing a care assessment. The Council failed to explain why the psychology input had ended and it delayed completing a care assessment. That caused Mr Y and his wife distress. An apology, payment to Mr Y and provision of an action plan to address the backlog of care assessments is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, is represented by his father, Mr Y. Mr Y complains the Council:
• failed to replace the psychologist Mr X saw, ded despite having said Mr X would have a psychologist indefinitely; and
• delayed completing a care assessment.
2. Mr Y says the Council’s actions have caused him and his wife significant distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr Y's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
6. Mr X, Mr Y and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Care Act and the Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014

7. 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.
8. Councils must carry out assessments over a suitable and reasonable timescale considering the urgency of needs and any variation in those needs. Councils should tell people when their assessment will take place and keep them informed throughout the assessment.

The Council’s waiting list activity

9. This provides guidance on managing the waiting list for care assessments. This includes:
• the requested date on the waiting list activity should be the date the individual/referrer made contact with the service;
• the required date on the waiting list activity must be added and be dependent on the needs and risk of the individual. The date can be determined by the team manager - however the waiting time should be no longer than 28 days;
• the service aims to make contact with the person to discuss their care and support needs as soon as possible, based on the person's risks and needs;
• when added to the waiting list a waiting list letter should be sent to the individual;
• if contact is then subsequently made by an individual on the list, discuss the current needs and re-prioritise as appropriate;
• the service aims to ensure no individual should be delayed a visit more than once;
• if the individual does not respond to contact made and offered by the service a letter should be sent, advising them that the piece of work will be closed.

What happened

10. Mr Y and his wife adopted Mr X. Mr X has an education, health and care plan (EHC Plan). Mr Y received adoption support payments up until Mr X’s 25th birthday. As Mr X has challenging behaviour and a continued need for support Mr Y contacted the Council in April 2024 to ask for a new financial package. Mr Y also raised concerns about the psychologist input ceasing when he said the Council had agreed for Mr X to see her indefinitely.
11. The Council spoke to Mr X on 9 April and he agreed to take part in a care assessment. The Council also spoke to Mr Y to tell him psychological support fell under the remit of health services, rather than adult social care. The Council’s social worker agreed to speak to Adopt South West though as Mr Y said the Council had promised him psychological support for Mr X indefinitely.
12. The Council’s social worker spoke to Adopt South West. Adopt South West told the social worker it was questionable whether Mr X needed continued psychological input as it had not provided much benefit so far. Adopt South West then met with Mr X and his parents in July 2024 and carried out an assessment for support. That did not identify any need for psychological input.
13. Mr Y chased the Council for the care assessment in August 2024. A Council officer telephoned Mr X on 21 October and spoke to his mother. The Council says Mr X’s mother said there were no current concerns and agreed for the Council to close the referral. However, Mr X’s mother disputes that and says the Council told her it could not help.
14. Mr Y complained to the Ombudsman and the case was referred to the Council as premature in December 2024. The Council wrote to Mr Y in February 2025. The Council explained about the adoption support available up to the age of 25 for those with an EHC Plan. The Council explained as Mr X had turned 25 he was not entitled to further therapeutic support. The letter confirmed the Council would, if Mr X consented, explore building Mr X’s independent life skills and said he could seek a care assessment.
15. The Council received a referral for Mr X in March 2025.
16. The Council started the care assessment on 1 July when a social worker met with Mr X and his parents. As a result of that assessment the Council made a referral to Reaching for Independence to work on Mr X’s independence skills. That work has now begun.

Analysis

17. Mr Y says when he and his wife adopted Mr X the Council told them he would have a social worker and psychologist for life. Mr Y says though when the psychologist left in 2023 she was not replaced.
18. I do not have any documentary evidence to show what the Council told Mr Y about the support Mr X would receive, and how long he would receive that support for, when Mr Y and his wife adopted him. I note though that Mr X received support from a psychologist between 2008 and 2023. The Council suggests that after 2023 Mr X did not need further psychological input because what he had received had not resulted in a significant difference. While that may well be the case I would have expected the Council to make that clear to Mr X and his parents at the time. I have seen no evidence the Council did that. That is fault and means Mr Y did not have enough information about the reasons for the psychological input ending.
19. I am satisfied though when Mr Y raised this as an issue in 2024 the Council addressed that by referring the case to Adopt South West who carried out an assessment. The Council also considered that as part of the care assessment in 2025. As the Council explained, adult social care does not include health input. Instead, that would be organised separately and would need to be secured through Mr X’s GP. I am therefore satisfied the Council signposted Mr Y properly at that point. Nevertheless, as I do not have any evidence to show Mr X and Mr Y were informed about the reason for the psychological input ending in 2023 I recommended the Council apologise to Mr X and Mr Y. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.
20. Mr X says the Council delayed completing a care assessment. The evidence I have seen satisfies me Mr Y first contacted the Council about potential involvement by adult social care in April 2024. Although the Council tried to contact Mr X in April 2024 to discuss the care assessment I am concerned the Council made no further attempts to contact Mr X until October 2024. That delay is fault. There is also no evidence the Council sent Mr X a waiting list letter, in accordance with its process. That is also fault.
21. I am also concerned about what happened when the Council telephoned Mr X in October 2024. The Council says its officer spoke to Mr X’s mother and she said Mr X did not need a care assessment at that point. That is something Mr X’s mother disputes.
22. Irrespective of whose recollection of the telephone call is accurate, I am satisfied Mr X had capacity to make his own decisions. As the Council had confirmed with Mr X earlier in 2024 he wanted the care assessment the Council should not have abandoned the process because his mother said Mr X did not need an assessment. Instead, the Council should have tried to speak to Mr X to confirm his wishes. Failing to do that and abandoning the process is therefore fault. Failure to write to Mr X to explain the Council had abandoned the process is also fault.
23. I am also concerned about the delay arranging a care assessment when the Council received another referral in March 2025. I have seen no evidence the Council began the assessment process until July 2025. I appreciate the Council has a backlog of care assessments to complete and prioritises those assessments. However, I have not received any evidence to show what priority the Council gave to Mr X’s case. Nor have I seen any evidence the Council wrote to Mr X to tell him about his priority on the waiting list. That is also fault. When prioritising Mr X’s case I would have expected the Council to consider that by March 2025 Mr X had already been waiting for 11 months for an assessment to take place. Further delay starting the assessment between March and July 2025 is therefore fault.
24. I am satisfied those delays caused Mr Y distress as he was concerned that without support Mr X could not develop his independence skills and the impact on their family would continue. I consider an appropriate outcome would be for the Council to apologise to Mr Y and pay him £400. I do not consider it necessary to make any recommendation for remedy for Mr X because it is clear the main concerns around the lack of adult social care support related to the impact on Mr Y and his wife. I recommended though the Council draw up an action plan to address the backlog of adult social care assessments. If the Council already has an action plan it should provide a copy of that to the Ombudsman. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Action

25. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Mr X and Mr Y for the distress they experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet;
• pay Mr Y £400; and
• draw up an action plan to address the backlog in adult social care assessments. If the Council already has an action plan it should provide a copy of that to the Ombudsman.
26. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

27. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman