Date of decision: 15 July 2025
Summary
South Gloucestershire Council failed to provide a proper carer’s assessment and the support plan documentation which should follow on as a matter of statutory compliance – which meant the carer’s needs for support were only considered inside of a care plan assessment for the individual for whom he cared, contrary to statute and guidance.
What happened
- Mrs X, a disabled adult, lived at home with her informal carer Mr X who received direct payments from the Council which he used to employ personal assistants for Mrs X’s care and support, with Mr X acting as her informal carer.
Her care plan covered the following: - Two hours care in the morning for support with showering, washing, dressing, skin care and bedding change, breakfast, medication and transfers
- One hour support at lunch time with a meal, drink, continence care and transfer
- One hour support at tea-time (same tasks as at lunch time)
- One hour support at evening with personal care, getting ready for bed, transfer into bed, medication and a drink
- Social support of five hours a week (two sessions) to access the community.
- One hour a week of support to attend health appointments
- Five hours a week of carer’s break support for Mr X
- Two weeks a year of live-in carer support. This was ‘support’ in case Mr X were to become unwell and could not look after Mrs X. It could also be used if Mr X wanted to go away for a break.
The Council had two carer’s assessment forms in its possession; one signed by Mr X in 2018 and the other in September 2022. The Council said however that it only received these forms from Mr X in November 2022. The implication, as far as it was concerned, was that Mr X had remained willing and able to discharge his role.
It had been providing five hours a week of carer’s support funding since May 2022 which was included on Mrs X’s care plan. He was allowed to roll over hours flexibly to ensure he could spend time away from the home for himself.
In August 2022, Mr X had met with a senior manager (with his MP) and was emailed a form to complete regarding a Care Act carer’s assessment for him to complete and advice about support from the carer’s centre. The carer’s centre flagged that Mr X’s [implicitly his existing support plan] was overdue for review in September 2022.
The social worker repeatedly asked Mr X in October and November 2022 if he had completed the assessment.
In February 2023, the social worker hand-delivered another copy of the assessment form. An internal email between a social worker and senior manager documented Mr X had been unwell and had not wanted to meet with the officers. The social worker noted his needs were supposedly recognised on Mrs X’s care plan, including five hours a week of PA support and two weeks annually for live-in care.
Between March and May 2023 effort was made to arrange reviews of Mrs X’s care plan, but Mr X, citing other commitments and declining health, postponed or declined meetings.
In July 2023 a social worker offered Mr X another opportunity for Mrs X’s care plan to be reviewed. Mr X requested an agenda and cited concern about meetings achieving nothing. The social worker confirmed the meeting was to review Mrs X’s care needs and Mr X’s needs as a carer. Mr X replied that the Council should already be aware of the situation.
However, later that month he expressed concern about his declining health and whether he could continue to provide care for Mrs X, and that employing personal assistants was creating retention issues due to stagnant pay.
In August 2023, a manager completed a visit to review Mrs X’s care and support plan. The outcome reported that Mr X would be going into hospital shortly. Due to this a manager reassured him that he had access to contingency hours for covering Mrs X’s care and to the rapid response team. The social worker planned further assessment and review after Mr X’s recovery.
Mrs X’s stairlift needs were assessed in January and October 2023 by occupational therapists, watching carers transfer Mrs X. The OT concluded it was unsafe for transfer assistance and refused funding for replacement, based on professional judgement and risk – the OT assessed the risk as unacceptably high. Mr and Mrs X wanted a new stairlift.
At the start of January 2024, the social worker summarised Mrs X’s care plan – it covered daily care, support for attending health appointments, five hours weekly carer’s breaks, and two weeks’ live-in carer support annually for emergencies or respite.
Mr X raised complaints multiple times with the Council regarding these issues. The Council responded, and explained the professional reasons for not funding the stairlift replacement, its willingness to conduct reviews, and that a carer’s assessment could be done if Mr X would only agree to participate. Mr X finally completed a new carer’s assessment in January 2025, in which he cited deteriorating health that was impacting on his caring role.
What was found
The Ombudsman found the Council at fault for failing to issue a carer’s support plan for Mr X, in breach of statutory guidance – which caused confusion and distress.
The investigator mentioned that the statutory Guidance allows carers to complete their own assessment forms. Mr X completed a form in November 2022 and January 2025. Therefore, the Ombudsman was satisfied that the carer’s assessments were done for the period investigated.
The Council was also permitted to meet Mr X’s needs as a carer by providing funding, as was done. However, the lack of any carer’s support plan for Mr X ignored the Guidance and was a fault. The Council caused avoidable confusion for Mr X about the support and services he could have expected to receive as a carer.
Investigations found no fault regarding the handling of the stairlift issue (judgement as to safety, by OTs), nor in the Council’s response to other complaints or care plan reviews (offers were made but declined).
However, the Ombudsman ordered the Council to apologise for distress and confusion and produce a carer’s support plan for Mr X. No financial compensation was specified; the remedy focused on apology, clarification, and improved planning.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups and members of the public
The Care Act envisages that a carer’s needs can be met by the local authority providing services/care to the person they care for. That only makes sense however when the care is back filled care, ie respite for when the person is not available to do the care. Councils have to consider how to align personal budgets where they are meeting the carer’s needs and the adult needing care concurrently and there is provision for agreeing a combined care plan (and implicitly a combined personal budget).
The Guidance also says that where a carer’s needs can be met by providing services to the (disabled) adult, this should be included in their adult’s care and support plan, as well as being detailed in a carer’s support plan.
If the council agrees that a person does have care or support needs, which are eligible, then it is the council’s responsibility to issue a care or support plan which sets out their needs, explains which of their needs are to be met by the budget, and to how much funding they are regarded as entitled. A copy of the care and support plan should be given to the person once completed (Care Act 2014, s24,25).
In practice, the strategic goal of carer assessment and support planning is to sustain carers, recognising both their contribution to public finances and the individual well-being benefits for those they care for.
The legal principles from community care law emphasise that a carer’s willingness and ability must be clearly and explicitly determined, and not simply assumed or managed informally inside another person’s care plan.
This report shows that the inclusion of a carer’s needs by way of services in someone else’s plan does not fulfil the statutory requirement to provide the carer with an individual support plan that is transparent about their needs and outcomes; nor is it a personal budget.
Carers are entitled to involvement of people whom they choose to be involved in their own assessment and support planning process, and a written record, including a budget sufficient to meet their own eligible unmet support needs, not just those of the person they care for.
Support planning must reflect what case law and public law principles require – genuine involvement and clarity to ensure rights are actionable if disputed.
The lack of a written support plan, and reliance instead on informal notes or a jointly held record with the cared-for person, would be judged non-compliant with the purpose and letter of the Care Act. There is no room for informal workarounds here, or a mere ‘conversation’ or a budget figure: the failure to deliver a separate plan exposes the council to judicial review and undermines the enforceability of carer rights. In support planning for carers, legal standards should require that outcomes, budgets, and methods of support should be directly linked to the carer’s own well-being domains – because nothing else would be rational, after all, in light of the statutory purpose – with a firm expectation that this will be subject to timely review and tailored adjustment, especially in cases where a carer’s health is declining or their willingness to continue is in doubt. But in the real world, those challenges don’t get to court because either a carer is bought off with a little more help for the person cared for, or the carer stops caring, as is their legal right.
The analysis confirms, as public law principles dictate, that it is not enough for councils to act only after complaints or hospitalisation; proactivity and clarity in creating and updating carer support plans are a legal minimum, not an optional best practice. Any ambiguity, delay, or reliance on the cared-for person’s plan alone risks further legal challenge and fails to meet the needs the legislation was designed to address. Practically, councils should invest in well-trained staff, regular reviews, and a culture of transparent documentation—ensuring all plans, decisions, and offers of support are bespoke, robust, and law-compliant.
Please use the following link if you want to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s South Gloucestershire Council (23 011 696) 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’ response will give you an opinion which may then help you and the broader community, when posted.
Did you enjoy this analysis? Want to stay informed with our weekly Alert Service?
Then do click here to find out how you can receive the latest insights from 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!