Summary: The Council accepts it delayed completing an assessment of Mrs X’s child, Y, and a carers assessment of Mrs X and her family. It also accepts it delayed implementing direct payments for Y following the assessment. This meant Mrs X had to provide additional care for Y and faced uncertainty, distress and frustration pursuing the Council for the outcomes of the assessments and the payments. The Council has already apologised to Mrs X and agreed to make a payment to recognise the impact on her and her family.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to pay her the agreed direct payments to support her child, Y. She also complained the Council failed to complete a carers assessment it agreed to carry out. She said this severely impacted her family, causing severe distress. She wants the Council to apologise and compensate her family.

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 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)
3. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
4. 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)
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 Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance and our guidance on remedies published on our website.
7. Mrs X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Law

8. Under the Children Act 1989, councils are required to provide services for children in need for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting their welfare. Where a referral is accepted under section 17 the council should lead a multi-agency assessment and complete it within 45 working days. Where the council’s children’s social care decides to provide services, it should develop a multiagency child in need plan which sets out which organisations and agencies will provide which services to the child and family. The plan must be reviewed within three months of the start of the child in need plan and further reviews should take place at least every six months thereafter. (Working Together to Safeguard Children) 
9. Parents can ask for a direct payment (DP) to meet the needs of the child. The council must carry out an assessment and DPs must be sufficient to meet the assessed needs. DPs must be used by the parent/carer to meet the child’s needs. DPs do not affect any benefit entitlement.
10. Councils must review the making of direct payments: 

• at least once within the first year of the direct payments being made;
• at appropriate intervals, not exceeding twelve months, thereafter;
• where the council reasonably considers the recipient is no longer eligible for a direct payment; and 
• whenever notified the direct payment may not have been used to secure provision for services for which the payment was made or the person receiving the payment is no longer suitable. (The Community Care, Services for Carers and Children’s Services (Direct Payments) (England) Regulations 2009)  

11. The Children Act 1989 (as amended by the Children and Families Act 2014) places specific duties on councils to assess the needs of carers with parental responsibility. Councils have an obligation to assess parent carers on the ‘appearance of need’ (Children Act 1989, section 17ZD/E), or if an assessment is requested by the parent, and to provide a written copy of the assessment to the parent carer.

What happened

12. Mrs X’s child Y has significant needs and is educated at home. In September 2024 Mrs X told the Council she needed more support for Y. The Council accepted the referral on 1 October 2024 and noted it had 45 days to complete an assessment of Y. It noted no immediate concerns for Y’s welfare.
13. Throughout October and November 2024 Mrs X chased the Council for an update on Y’s assessment. A Council case note said it needed to extend the timescale for Y’s assessment as it was unclear what support was in place and needed.
14. The Council spoke to Mrs X on the phone in early December 2024. It noted she was extremely distressed. Mrs X said she could no longer cope. The Council noted its assessment was overdue.
15. Mrs X complained in January 2025. The Council completed its assessment of Y on 30 January 2025. It recommended direct payments of six hours a week for a Personal Assistant (PA) to support Y.
16. In early February 2025 the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint. It said it had completed its assessment, and this would be decided at a panel on 13 February 2025. It said Mrs X’s social worker would inform her of the outcome by 14 February. It apologised for the delay completing the assessment. The Council approved Y’s direct payments at a panel on 13 February 2025.
17. Mrs X’s social worker did not contact her on 14 February 2025 and Mrs X asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaint process. She said she had not received an update on the direct payments. She also said she had not received an update on a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) she had discussed with Y’s social worker. The Council called Mrs X a few days later and told her it had approved six hours a week of direct payments. It apologised for not informing her sooner and said this was due to its social worker dealing with an emergency situation. It also offered Mrs X a carers assessment. Mrs X began using a PA to support Y shortly after this.
18. The Council responded to Mrs X’s stage two complaint on 17 March 2025. It apologised for the delay in informing Mrs X about the outcome of its assessment. It also apologised for not providing Mrs X with information about a DFG. It explained this was the responsibility of another council and signposted Mrs X. It said it was now in the process of setting up the direct payments and would provide a further update by 18 March 2025. It said it would visit Mrs X to carry out a carers assessment in April 2025. It said it would improve its communication with Mrs X and ensure it responded to any contact within 48 hours.
19. The Council visited Mrs X as agreed on 1 April 2025 to begin its carers assessment. At this time the direct payments were still not in place. Mrs X continued to chase the Council for the payments. On 2 June 2025 the Council told Mrs X it was not aware she had arranged a PA until 11 April 2025. It said it would chase its procurement team to add the PA to its system and complete the payments.
20. Mrs X made a further complaint to the Council on 17 June 2025. She said the direct payments were still not in place and she had still not received the outcome of the carers assessment. She said the Council had visited on 1 April 2025 and seen the PA was in place at that time. She added that the Council had not kept to the communication timescales promised in its previous complaint response. Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman at the same time.
21. The Council says it made the first direct payment on 19 June 2025. This included a back payment to the 14 February 2025, the day after the Council approved the direct payments. The Council also made a one-off payment of £200 to cover the first year of Mrs X’s liability insurance and DBS check for employing a PA. Mrs X says she did not receive the first direct payment until July 2025.
22. The Council issued its carers assessment on 18 July 2025. It did not identify any additional need to support the family but signposted Mrs X to its family support service and made a referral to its Adult Social Care team for Mrs X. Mrs X said she was unhappy with the outcome of the assessments. She said Y was being penalised for being educated at home as children in school received an uplift in direct payments during the holidays. She said a recent operation for Y had meant she had to increase the direct payments used. She asked for an early review of the payments.
23. The Council visited Mrs X in August 2025. It said there were no changes in Y’s needs or Mrs X’s situation, and the direct payments would be reviewed in November as planned. It closed the case to its assessment team.
24. In response to our enquiries the Council accepted it had delayed completing Y’s assessment and the carers assessment and delayed implementing the direct payments. It said it had now backdated the payments.

My findings

Assessment and direct payment delays

25. The Council accepts it delayed carrying out its assessment of Y. It accepted the referral for the assessment on 1 October 2024. It should have completed the assessment no later than 45 working days from this date, this was 3 December 2025. The Council did not complete the assessment and approve the direct payments until 13 February 2025, a delay of just over two months. This was fault.
26. On balance, I am satisfied that had the Council carried out the assessment within 45 working days it would still have assessed that Y required six hours a week of support to meet their needs. As a result of the delay Y was without this support for over two months. This meant Mrs X had to continue to provide this support, causing distress and frustration.
27. Following approval of the direct payments the Council accepts it delayed implementing them. This was fault. The direct payments were to fund a PA to support Y for six hours a week. The PA was not in place until after the direct payments were approved in February 2025, and the Council has since back dated the payments. While there is some confusion over when the payments were in place from, the delay in implementing the payments did not resulted in any quantifiable financial loss for Mrs X, but it caused her frustration and uncertainty over when the payments would be in place, as well as time and trouble pursuing them.
28. The Council also accepts it delayed completing the carers assessment of Mrs X and her family. This was fault. While the assessment did not recommend any further support for Mrs X and her family, the delay caused Mrs X further uncertainty over what support she was entitled to.

Assessed level of care

29. Mrs X remains unhappy at the level of assessed care for Y and the outcome of the carers assessment. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a person disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
30. In assessing Y and Mrs X’s family, the Council took account of the relevant guidance, information from Mrs X and others involved in Y’s care and its own policies. The Council followed the appropriate procedures when carrying out the assessments and I cannot therefore criticise its decision.

Back to top

Action

31. Within one month of the final decision the Council should:
1. Pay Mrs X £300 to recognise the impact of the delay in completing Y’s assessment, meaning Mrs X had to care for Y in the absence of a PA.
2. Pay Mrs X £500 to recognise the frustration, uncertainty and time and trouble she faced having to continually chase the Council to complete the delayed assessments and implement the agreed direct payments.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

33. I find fault causing injustice and have recommended actions to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman