Date of decision: 17 September 2025
Summary
The report concerns West Sussex’s failure to assess a carer’s support needs and to keep adequate records after a request for respite. The failings meant an individual experienced prolonged uncertainty, frustration, and a lack of access to services or respite they might have been eligible for.
What happened
On 15 February 2023, a mother, who was the principal carer for her adult son, requested respite care from the Council. The Council put the son on a waiting list for a review that would include consideration of respite care in his support arrangements. At the same time, the Council claimed it provided the mother with contact details for an external carers’ support service for a self-referral to a carer’s assessment, but produced no evidence for this.
In July 2023, the Council reviewed the son’s position on the waiting list and decided not to change his status. On 1 September 2023, the Council’s duty team received instructions to gather information about the son’s situation and possible risks faced by the mother as carer. Then, due to a change in day-support contracting, a social worker was assigned to review the son’s care on 31 October 2023. The review happened on 6 November 2023.
Records from that review stated that the adult son “has a caring and supportive family (mother and brothers who are willing and able to continue to support with his needs for the foreseeable future”. In answer to the question “Have we offered a Carer’s Assessment to any unpaid carer(s) you have?” the answer provided was “Yes – carer assessed separately from the cared-for person” although there was no evidence it had actually taken place. An officer also stated carer support information would be sent in due course.
In its enquiry response, the Council said it was outsourcing carer assessments at that time, suggesting the mother might not have contacted the carer’s support service for an assessment. The Council also argued there was no request or need for respite because any change would unsettle the son. The mother insisted that she never received a carer’s assessment.
It took until almost November 2023—nearly nine months after the original request—for the Council to consider the mother’s needs as a carer. The six-month update she received did not include a realistic indicative timescale or keep her adequately informed. It was unclear from the information provided by the Council whether:
- The mother was offered a carer’s assessment but refused to accept one;
- The Council referred the mother for a carer’s assessment to an outsourced department but for some reason it was not completed, or it was done, but the Council does not have a copy;
- The Council asked the mother to contact a third party but she failed to do so; or
- The Council took no action in completing a carer’s assessment or referring the mother for a carer’s assessment.
What was found
The Ombudsman did not consider that the Council acted within a reasonable time nor did it keep the mother updated. This caused her frustration and also uncertainty as to whether the Council would have provided her with services during that time.
The delay breached Care Act statutory guidance on timeliness. The failure of the Council to properly record its actions was fault, causing uncertainty.
Ultimately, the Ombudsman considered that on balance, based on the information provided, that the Council did not offer the mother a carer’s assessment. The mother therefore had uncertainty as to whether she had missed out on services because of the Council’s failure to assess her as a carer.
To resolve the injustice, the Council must apologise to the carer for delays and not completing an assessment, pay £150 symbolic payment for the uncertainty and frustration which the Council’s failures caused her, complete a carer’s assessment and, once that is completed, decide whether the mother should receive a further symbolic payment in recognition of the services or carer’s grants she missed out on. It must also review its procedures to prevent similar delays and remind staff about proper recording of what action has been taken including where a person has refused an assessment.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups and members of the public
The Ombudsman’s report finds statutory fault in West Sussex’s handling of a carer’s request for assessment and respite, in light of the duty to carry out a carer’s assessment arising where it appears to a local authority that a carer may have needs for support (whether currently or in the future). The duty arises regardless of the authority’s view of the level of the carer’s needs for support, or the carer’s financial resources.
Carers’ willingness and ability to continue should never be assumed; local authorities are obliged to actively determine and record what care a carer can and will provide. Several cases establish that councils must respond to urgent carer strain without delay, with the threshold for ‘urgency’ grounded in everyday meaning rather than what is administratively convenient for a service. Carer strain relates back to the adequacy of the care plan for the person cared for, and thus the change of circumstances should not have been ignored even in relation to the son, not just the mother.
The Ombudsman report highlights that a carer’s assessment must seek to find out not only the carer’s need for support, but also the sustainability of the caring role itself. Without a carer’s assessment it is far more likely that the carer will just collapse and withdraw completely; carers’ assessments are part and parcel of a commitment to preventing crisis before it happens. Carers are free simply to withdraw from care when they cease to be willing, and the downside of an assessment is that it can make a carer feel that in fact they need permission to put themselves first, which is simply not true. However, the assessment should consider the outcomes the carer wants to achieve in their daily life, their activities beyond their caring responsibilities, and the impact of caring upon those activities.
The duty to assess does not depend on an individual passing a “screening” or preliminary eligibility test, and a carer’s assessment triggers a legal obligation to consider the impact on their wellbeing across specified domains—not just whether respite is requested or whether a cared-for person accepts change.
Contracting out or delegating the carers’ assessment process to an external organisation, as the Council did, does not displace these statutory duties; the Council retains ultimate legal accountability for the sufficiency, accuracy, and follow-up of contracted-out assessments.
Standard practice and case law highlight that delays or superficial assessments not only breach guidance but risk undermining carers’ mental and physical health, personal relationships, and rights to make their own choices about work, education, and family life. The Ombudsman’s analysis regarding the lack of indicative timescales, opaque record keeping, and failure to offer prompt respite is validated in light of these principles. Merely signposting to an external agency, without proper follow-up or confirmation, is not sufficient to discharge the duty to assess.
We think that the Council’s involvement of an external agency, whilst doubtless intended to reduce the backlog, may have in fact just presented another barrier to carers in obtaining the support they required. Since the Care Act, we actually doubt whether it can be regarded as efficient to have an organisation dealing with Carers without the cared-for person’s care manager being involved, (if a council is involved for that person) because the two people each matter and each have well-being needs.
Broader implications for councils: immediate action should be prioritised when carers signal risk, with clear, upfront communication about process, available support options, and pathways to advocate involvement. Councils should revisit protocols for documenting all contacts and decisions relating to carer assessments and respite, ensuring follow-through even when assessments are outsourced to contractors. Professionals should not leave carers uncertain or unsupported as a result of fragmented record keeping or assumptions about family ability to cope.
We are struck by the Council’s statement that there was no request or need for respite care because any changes would trigger the son’s anxiety. The statement about the lack of a request clearly differed from what the mother said in her complaint. Overall the statement suggests that the Council did just assume the mother would continue to cope, where an assessment might have highlighted concerns about the sustainability of the package, which if it broke down would presumably have had a devastating effect on the son.
Please use the following link if you want to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s West Sussex County Council (24 017 495) 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!