Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed providing his son with respite care when he transitioned from children to adult services. We find the Council was at fault for the delay in securing suitable respite care for Mr X’s son. This caused distress and upset, and Mr X’s son lost out on care he was entitled to. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and his son, make payments to them and implement a service improvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council delayed providing his son, Mr Y, with respite care when he transitioned from children to adult services. He says the Council ignored medical evidence and focussed on cost-cutting rather than meeting Mr Y’s assessed needs.
2. Mr X says the Council’s failures have caused immense stress and hardship to the whole family.

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. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
4. We may investigate complaints from the person affected by the complaint issues, or from someone else if they have given their consent. If the person affected cannot give their consent, we may investigate a complaint from a person we decide is a suitable representative. (section 26A or 34C, Local Government Act 1974)
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

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council 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

Transition from children to adult services

8. When a child reaches 18 years of age, they are legally an adult and responsibility for meeting their needs moves from the council’s children services to its adult services. The legal basis for assessing their needs changes from the Children Act 1989 to the Care Act 2014. However, councils can decide to treat a children’s assessment as an adult assessment and can also carry out joint assessments.
9. Statutory guidance says transition assessments should begin when the council can be reasonably confident about what the young person’s needs for care and support will look like when they turn 18.
10. After completing the transition assessment, the council must give an indication of which of their needs are likely to be “eligible needs” under the Care Act 2014, and which are not. This is so young people and their carers can understand the care and support they are likely to receive and can plan accordingly. For those needs that are not eligible the council must provide information and advice on how those needs can be met.
11. If the council is going to meet the person’s needs under the Care Act 2014 after they are 18, it must create a care and support plan and produce a personal budget. This needs to be done early enough that the package of care and support is in place at the time of transition.
12. If adult care and support is not in place on the child’s 18th birthday and they have been receiving support from children’s services, the council must continue providing services until adult care and support is in place to take over, or until it is clear that adult care and support is not needed. This ensures there is no ‘cliff-edge’ where someone reaching the age of 18 suddenly finds themselves without the care and support they need at the point of becoming an adult.

What happened

13. This chronology gives an overview of key events in this case and does not detail everything that happened
14. Mr Y has complex needs. He received respite care which the Council’s children services department funded. Mr Y’s children’s social worker made a referral to the Council’s transition team in 2021. She followed it up in November 2022 and said Mr X and his wife (Mrs X) wanted to start discussing Mr Y’s transition to adult services. The officer responded and said Mr Y’s case was in the transitions pending tray.
15. The Council assigned a transitions social worker to the case in March 2023. She visited Mr Y at home in May. Mr and Mrs X said they wanted respite care to continue for Mr Y.
16. The social worker made a referral for Mr Y to access respite care at Provider A for 30 days per year at the end of May.
17. Mr Y turned 18 in June. He had his final day at the children’s respite service just before his birthday.
18. Mrs X went to visit Provider A in late June. Provider A emailed the Council after Mrs X’s visit. It said Mrs X said Mr Y could not use a shower. It said it only had showers/wet rooms. It suggested making an urgent referral to an occupational therapist (OT) to see if Mr Y could use any alternative equipment.
19. The Council made a referral for an OT to assess Mr Y at Provider A. The OT contacted Mr X. Mr X explained Mr Y has severe learning difficulties, he has no danger awareness, and he is doubly incontinent.
20. Mr and Mrs X emailed the Council at the end of June and said Provider A would not meet Mr Y’s needs. They asked what other respite was available.
21. The social worker contacted Mrs X in early July. She explained the panel had approved 30 nights for Mr Y at Provider A. Mrs X said Mr Y was unsteady on his feet. The two rooms Provider A offered were on the second floor and in the loft. She said this would be a safety hazard for Mr Y. She also repeated her concerns about the lack of a bath at Provider A.
22. The social worker emailed Mr and Mrs X in late July. She said the placement team had not found a respite provider with a bath. She asked whether they would re-consider Provider A if Mr Y stayed on the ground floor. She said the Council could then ask for an OT to assess the use of alternative bathing equipment like a shower chair. Mr X replied and said Mr Y needed a bath for his safety. He provided the social worker with two disability housing needs forms.
23. The Council had internal discussions about finding suitable provision for Mr Y. Officers stated they needed an OT report to understand Mr Y’s bathing needs. They also questioned whether Mr Y needed a bath if he was only staying for one or two nights.
24. The social worker contacted the OT. She said the Council had a report from 2009, but Mr Y had grown since then. The OT said it was going to be a difficult assessment. She said she could only assess Mr Y in his home using a bath as that was in the family home.
25. The Council found an alternative respite provider (Provider B) with a bath.
26. Mrs X visited Provider B in August. Mr X emailed the social worker and said Provider B was unsuitable for Mr Y. He said there was no 1:1 support for Mr Y, the stairs were steep and narrow, the grabs rails for the bath were in poor condition and there were no activities.
27. An officer from the Council’s placement team reviewed the case. They said the Council needed to engage an OT to understand why bathing was the only option to provide personal care.
28. Mr and Mrs X visited a third provider (Provider C) at the end of August. Mr X said it was unsuitable for Mr Y because there was no bath and Mr Y needed more support than the provider could offer.
29. The social worker continued to look for other respite provision for Mr Y. She reviewed the case in mid-September and decided to revisit the conversation with the OT. A senior officer told her to ask for a bathing assessment to see if Mr Y could use any other equipment safely.
30. An OT phoned Mr X in early November to discuss a bathing assessment. Mr X agreed for the assessment to take place in December.
31. The Council made referrals to other respite providers. They said they could not meet Mr Y’s needs.
32. The OT completed their assessment in late December. They decided a shower chair and a shower trolley was not safe for Mr Y to use. They also noted Mr Y appeared to be sensitive with pressure from water drops. They recommended trialling a bath board to support bath transfers which staff could use in a respite facility.
33. The Council suggested another provider (Provider D) for Mr Y. Mr and Mrs X visited Provider D in February 2024. They said it was not suitable for Mr Y because the bath and the bathroom were too small for his needs, the upstairs of the property was inaccessible, and the stairs were too steep.
34. The placement team noted they had explored all respite providers but there was nothing in the area that would meet Mr Y’s needs.
35. The Council assigned a new social worker to the case. She visited Mrs X in late May to discuss the ongoing issues. Mrs X explained she was struggling to cope without respite support. The social worker noted Mr Y’s care needs were high.
36. The social worker emailed Mr X a few weeks later. She said she was going to complete a review of Mr Y’s needs because they were complex, and he needed 1:1 support. She also said she would liaise with the OT and make another referral to the placement team.
37. The placement team responded to the referral and said they could not find a suitable provider within the borough.
38. Mrs X chased for updates throughout August.
39. The social worker emailed Mrs X in September. She said the placement team could not find a suitable placement within the borough. She asked whether Mr and Mrs X would consider out of borough respite provision. Mrs X responded and said she had previously confirmed she was happy for the Council to look for providers in neighbouring boroughs.
40. The Council identified another provider (Provider E) in a neighbouring borough. Mr and Mrs X confirmed they were happy with Provider E in November.
41. Provider E provided its costings to the Council in early December. The Council presented the case to panel in early January 2025. After further discussions, the panel approved funding at the end of January.
42. Mr X complained to the Council in January about its failure to address Mr Y’s urgent respite needs. The Council responded in February. It said it had exhausted all available respite options. It partly upheld his complaint and said he did not receive a good enough service and some of the communication was not appropriate. It apologised for this. It said his complaint had fed into its ongoing review of transition arrangements. It would continue to highlight the need for additional resource or systemic changes to address the gap in in-house respite services for adults.
43. Mr X had his first overnight respite stay at Provider E in March.

Back to top

Analysis

44. The legislation and statutory guidance make it clear that transition planning and assessments must take place early enough to ensure that an adult care package is in place for when the young person turns 18.
45. In Mr Y’s case, the Council did not visit him to complete an assessment until one month before his 18th birthday. This is fault. I do not consider this was sufficient time, especially given Mr Y's complex needs, to ensure the smooth transition of provision to adult care services.
46. There was a significant gap, from June 2023 to March 2025, when Mr Y did not receive his assessed need of respite care. This is not in line with the Care Act 2014 which states there should be no gaps in services between children’s and adults’ provision.
47. The records show the Council searched extensively for a respite provider for Mr Y within the borough but could not find suitable provision for him that met his needs. The Council’s delay in find suitable provision for Mr Y is therefore a service failure.
48. Mr X says the Council ignored medical evidence and did not understand Mr Y’s needs when offering placements. While Mr and Mrs X provided their insight of Mr Y’s bathing needs, the Council did not have up-to-date medical information. It therefore needed OT input. Once it received it in December 2023, it accepted a bath, rather than a shower, was appropriate for Mr Y. It did not suggest any further providers without baths after this.
49. However, there are some examples in the case records which suggest the Council had not fully understood Mr Y’s needs. This is fault. The Council suggested a placement without 1:1 support, even though a 1:1 need was stipulated in Mr Y’s assessment. It also questioned whether Mr Y needed to have a bath when he was only staying for up to two nights, even though he is doubly incontinent and this is in his assessment.
50. Mr X also says the Council focussed on cost cutting rather than meeting Mr Y’s needs. He refers to an email where an officer stated, “My concern is that we are being led by the family to a potentially more expensive placement, without clarity of need”. He also refers to the panel paperwork which says, “what has been done to ensure that only the minimum of statutory care is provided”.
51. While it may be poorly worded, my interpretation of the officer’s email is they wanted to ensure the Council understood Mr Y’s needs fully, rather than sourcing a placement that was more expensive but was not necessary for his needs. That is not unreasonable.
52. The Council’s duty under the Care Act 2014 is to provide appropriate care and support to meet a person’s assessed needs. Its reference to the minimum of statutory care is misleading. However, the file shows Council made extensive placement searches and stipulated Mr Y’s needs when sending referrals to providers. It would not have done so if it was only focussed on cost cutting.
53. The Council’s fault in this case has caused Mr Y a significant injustice as he was without the respite care he was entitled to for nearly two years. Mr Y lost opportunities to socialise with his peers and gain independence away from the home. He also experienced distress and a disruption to his routine.
54. The Council’s fault also caused Mr X significant distress and upset. He has some uncertainty what the outcome may have been if the Council had dealt with Mr Y’s transition to adult services sooner. It is clear from file he and Mrs X were struggling with not having a break from their caring responsibilities and not being able to spend time with their other children. The lack of respite care for Mr Y has had a significant impact on the wider family.

Back to top

Action

55. By 7 November 2025 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mr X and Mr Y for the injustice caused by fault in this statement.
• Pay Mr Y £600 to recognise the injustice caused by the lack of respite care.
• Pay Mr X £800 to recognise the distress, upset and uncertainty caused to him and the wider family.

56. By 5 December 2025 the Council has agreed to:

• Review its procedures for transition planning for young people approaching 18. The review should focus on how staff will ensure assessments take place early enough so there are no gaps in provision, and an adult care package is in place for when the young person turns 18.

57. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

58. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr X and Mr Y an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman