Date of decision: 07 May 2025
Summary
Kent Council’s delay in completing a care needs assessment and financial assessment for an older woman, alongside poor communication, caused significant distress and uncertainty for her and her family.
What happened
Mrs Z, acting for her mother-in-law Mrs X, contacted the Council in 2023 after Mrs X moved into a care home, temporarily and privately, due to her carer’s husband’s terminal illness making it impossible for him to carry on meeting her needs. She anticipated that Mrs X would need permanent residential care so the family sought a care needs assessment.
Mrs X’s husband died in October 2023, and Mrs X was later hospitalised before moving to another care home in November.
The Council delayed allocating a social worker to do an assessment.
By January 2024, Mrs X’s funds were still above the capital threshold but depleting, and the family requested financial help for her placement.
The Council delayed both the care needs and financial assessments, only completing the financial assessment in February 2024 and the care needs assessment at the very end of April 2024.
The initial assessment purported to conclude that Mrs X could return home with support, but after the family challenged this, a second assessment in June 2024 found her eligible for residential care.
There were discussions between the family and the Council and a deferred payment agreement was discussed but the form was supposedly sent by email but not ever received according to Mrs Z.
As Mrs X’s savings depleted further, the Council eventually agreed to pay care home fees in full from July 2024 under a temporary arrangement, to be recouped after Mrs X’s property sale.
The Council also failed to apply a 12-week property disregard when Mrs X became a permanent resident, causing further financial worry although for some of that period, her capital was still above the upper threshold for any charging subsidy.
What was found
The Council accepted the care needs assessment was delayed beyond what could be acceptable, and failed to communicate effectively, which amounts to breaching statutory duties under the Care Act 2014.
It also failed to apply the 12-week property disregard as required by law, increasing the family’s distress and financial uncertainty. The Council acknowledged these failings, apologised, and offered a symbolic payment of £350 to Mr and Mrs Z for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The Council also agreed to apply the property disregard for the part of the period of 12 weeks when it would have made a difference, and issued a briefing to staff to prevent recurrence.
No further recommendations were made as the Ombudsman considered the remedy suitable.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups and members of the public
Under sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014, local authorities are legally required to carry out an assessment for any adult who appears to have needs for care and support, regardless of their financial circumstances or whether those needs may ultimately be deemed eligible. Councils must act within a reasonable timeframe that reflects the urgency of the person’s needs and keep the individual (and family) informed throughout the process.
In cases involving permanent residential care, the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and accompanying Statutory Guidance require councils to apply a 12-week property disregard to any assessment of means, from the date a person becomes a permanent resident. There is debate about whether that means from the date when the person first becomes a local authority funded resident or from the date when they have been a permanent resident, regardless of how that is being funded. The aim however is to ensure temporary protection so the individual is not forced to sell their home immediately to fund care. A delayed or omitted property disregard can lead to inappropriate charging and unnecessary financial pressure.
Additionally, community care law reinforces that poor communication and delay in assessment can amount to maladministration if they undermine the individual’s rights under the Care Act framework. A failure to commence an assessment promptly or to provide clear information about outcomes and financial consequences can breach both procedural and substantive duties under the Act.
The Ombudsman’s report, while acknowledging these breaches, overlooks certain key elements in its analysis. Community care law confirms that the duty to assess is not discretionary; it arises immediately upon the appearance of need. Any delay in allocating a social worker, as occurred here, may exceed what a Court (the Administrative Court) regards as reasonable, and hence that would amount to a breach of the absolute statutory duty under section 9. The Ombudsman does not fully spell out that the council must act without waiting for full depletion of capital or other triggering events—and this may mislead about when duties actually arise and may give officers the false impression that assessment is contingent on financial eligibility being established or a crisis intervention only.
The absence of scrutiny of the assessment content—beyond timeliness—risks endorsing flawed judgment processes.
Also missing is attention to the council’s duty to make a decision about the offer of a deferred payment agreement under the Care and Support (Deferred Payment) Regulations 2014. The council’s apparent reliance on a single email, where the family disputed ever receiving the application form, would not satisfy the requirement to “ensure” access to the scheme. The Ombudsman missed the opportunity to clarify the authority’s positive obligations regarding proactive facilitation of deferred payments.
The broader implication is that councils must not conflate administrative backlog with discretion in performing statutory functions. Legal duties under the Care Act are mandatory and time-sensitive. Councils should implement robust systems to prevent delay, ensure access to information in multiple formats, and take active steps to apply financial protections fairly and promptly. Failure to do so not only causes distress but undermines legal entitlements and the integrity of the care system.
Please use the following link to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s Kent County Council (23 020 623) report.
If you are affected by the issues in this report, please consider asking a free, one-off question, anonymously, at a level of principle, here. Our experts’ opinions provided in response will then serve both you and the broader community when posted.
Did you enjoy this analysis?
Stay informed with our weekly Alert Service! Providing you with the latest insights from top experts and commentators and stay updated on key judicial decisions, ombudsmen’s reports, and critical law and policy changes, all for just £50 per YEAR and sent straight to your inbox or WhatsApp!