Council failed to respond appropriately to requests from family struggling in caring role, Ombudsman finds

Following investigation, the Ombudsman found the council delayed addressing “escalating risks”, failed to coordinate a man’s case effectively and did not ensure continuity of support. It also failed to complete a carer’s assessment.

The man behind the complaint, Mr X, complained on behalf of his brother, Mr Y.

He said the council failed to provide information about, or discuss the available options for, respite care for Mr Y. He said their mother, who provides significant support to Mr Y, was at “breaking point”.

Outlining the background to the case, the Ombudsman said: “Mr Y is in his twenties. He has a learning disability and autism. He lives at home with his mother, along with Mr X, and his twin brother, both of which are teenagers in full-time education.”

Mr Y has eligible care needs under the Care Act and receives commissioned services under a care and support plan.

Mr X told the Ombudsman that the family were upset by a suggestion that he, as 17-year-old sibling should help care for Mr Y to enable their mother to have a break.

He said this was inappropriate because he is in full-time education, has a part-time job and is not Mr Y's carer or a trained support worker.

Mr X added that he and his mother contacted the council on “numerous occasions” to raise their concerns and seek help.

Mr X said there had been a lack of communication between officers and his mother.

Analysing the case, the Ombudsman said: “The evidence shows the council was aware for many months that Mr Y's mother was under increasing pressure in her role as his primary carer. Its own records repeatedly refer to concerns about carer strain and the risk of carer breakdown. Despite this, the council's response lacked urgency and coordination.”

The Ombudsman found that at times, Mr Y's case was managed through the council’s duty system rather than an allocated social worker, leaving the family without consistent professional oversight during a period of escalating need.

The council accepted its response was not sufficiently timely, coordinated or proactive.

The Ombudsman continued: “The council also accepts it failed to offer Mr Y’s mother a standalone carer's assessment. This was a significant omission. A carer's assessment is intended to identify a carer's own needs, consider the impact of their caring responsibilities on their wellbeing, and determine what support may be available to help them continue in their caring role.

Although the council considered Mrs Y's mother's needs within reviews of Mr Y's care, that was not a substitute for carrying out a separate assessment of her own needs.”

Concluding the case, the Ombudsman said: “The cumulative effect of the council's failures placed additional pressure on the family at a time when they were already under significant pressure. Mr Y's mother experienced avoidable stress, distress and uncertainty because the council did not respond to the escalating risks in a sufficiently coordinated way or properly assess her own support needs.

“Mr X also experienced avoidable stress and frustration. As a teenager in full-time education, he should not have been left in the position of repeatedly advocating on behalf of his mother and attempting to secure support that the council itself had recognised was urgently needed. While these failings did not lead to more serious consequences for Mr Y and his mother, there was a clear risk that they could have done so.”

To remedy the injustice caused, the council was recommended to:

• Provide a written apology to Mr Y, his mother and Mr X acknowledging the faults identified
• Commence a review of Mr Y's current care and support plan with his mother and Mr X to ensure it remains sufficient to meet Mr Y's assessed needs and provides appropriate and sustainable respite arrangements for Mr Y and his mother.
• Pay Mr Y’s mother £1,000 to recognise the significant stress, distress, and uncertainty she experienced because the council failed to respond appropriately to the escalating risk of carer breakdown and failed to offer her a carer's assessment.
• Pay Mr X £300 to recognise the distress, frustration and avoidable time and trouble he experienced in repeatedly pursuing the council for support on behalf of his mother and brother while he was himself a teenager in full-time education.
• Complete a comprehensive carer's assessment for Mr Y’s mother and, where eligible needs are identified, prepare a support plan setting out how those needs will be met.
• Remind relevant social care staff of the requirement to offer and record carer's assessments where it appears an adult may have needs for support in their caring role;
• Review its arrangements for managing complex cases through the duty system to ensure cases involving escalating risk of carer breakdown are allocated appropriately and receive consistent oversight;
• Remind staff of the importance of responding promptly to correspondence from service users and their families and maintaining clear communication where there are delays or changes in case allocation.

A spokesperson for Herefordshire Council, said: “We are sorry that the family did not receive the standard of service they should have expected. We accept the Ombudsman's findings and have agreed all recommendations. Work is already under way to address the issues identified and strengthen support for carers and families who rely on our services."