Date of decision: 06 February 2026
Summary
A daughter complained the Council did not properly support her or her father around his hospital discharge, longer-term care planning and respite options, leaving him without suitable care at home and her carrying the burden as his unpaid carer. The Council failed to involve her in planning, did not clearly explain or document care options, costs or disability-related expenses, and omitted a timely, complete assessment process, causing avoidable distress and frustration to both, for which it later apologised and offered a financial remedy.
What happened
In late May 2024, the father, Mr Y, was admitted to hospital, triggering the Council’s adult social care involvement. In early June 2024, a social worker met him in hospital and decided he would not be eligible for reablement care, assessing his needs as long-term rather than short-term. Around the same time, an Occupational Therapist met Mr Y and his family and advised that, because his needs were long-term, a short-term “discharge to assess” pathway would not be appropriate. The Council then completed a Care Act Assessment in early June 2024, recording that Mr Y required a long-term care package.
In mid-June 2024, the hospital discharged Mr Y home, and his daughter, Miss X, agreed to support him until the Council arranged services. The day after discharge, the Council discussed internally what care would be appropriate and arranged a care package due to start the following day, but this was done with minimal discussion with Miss X. On the morning the care was due to start, Miss X contacted the Council to cancel the package, saying it had been put in place with little consultation and confirming she wanted the Council instead to set up a direct payment.
In early August 2024, the Council carried out a more detailed Care Needs Assessment. Its notes record that officers discussed care costs with Mr Y and Miss X and also explored accommodation options such as sheltered housing and Extra Care Housing. The Council agreed to send Mr Y a letter that same day outlining his options so he could consider how he wished to proceed, and it did send that letter.
In early September 2024, Miss X emailed the Council stating that Mr Y did not want to proceed further with care arrangements because of the cost, and she requested a fresh financial assessment. The Council’s finance team responded that a new assessment was unnecessary because a financial assessment had already been completed within the last year, but it would send a letter about client contributions and Disability Related Expenses (DRE). In mid-September 2024, the Council received a referral from the local Ambulance service, indicating further concerns about Mr Y’s situation at home.
During mid and late September 2024, Miss X had discussions with the finance team about DRE, and officers told her what evidence they would require from her to complete any DRE-related assessment. In late October 2024, the Council carried out a further Care Act Assessment, at which Mr Y again said he wanted time to think about what care and support he wished to receive and did not make a firm decision.
In December 2024, Miss X contacted the Council to request respite care for Mr Y to relieve her caring responsibilities. The Council discussed respite with both Mr Y and Miss X, and initially they agreed to go ahead. The Council then contacted various care settings and called back to confirm a suitable respite placement had been found, but by then Mr Y had changed his mind and decided he did not want to go into respite care. In mid-December 2024, Mr Y was again admitted to hospital after a fall; the hospital then discharged him without putting any social care services in place, noting that Mr Y had said he did not feel services were necessary.
In mid-February 2025, Miss X made a formal complaint to the Council, alleging it had failed to explain the package of care or associated costs, had arranged a care package without communication, had not issued a care plan, and had failed to give correct information about DRE. The Council replied in late March 2025, saying it could not see from its records what information about care options or costs had been given to Mr Y and Miss X, and promising to reinforce with staff the need to include family members in decisions and provide relevant information. It confirmed that care needs assessments had taken place in June 2024, apologised for not providing financial information and said it would address this with staff. It also said it could not see what DRE advice had been given, disputed that respite had been requested before December 2024, and explained further needs assessments had not proceeded because Mr Y had said he wanted time to think. The Council apologised for failing to return a telephone call Miss X had made.
Miss X escalated her complaint in April 2025, saying she was unhappy that reablement care had not been offered and that she had not been properly involved in Mr Y’s care planning. She said the Council had failed to complete care needs assessments within relevant timescales and had not properly assessed Mr Y’s long‑term needs. She also complained about the way differing professional opinions on Mr Y’s needs were presented within a short period, which she believed led to services being stopped and reinstated quickly, and about the Council using out‑of‑date information in its assessments and failing to provide her with advice about respite for carers.
In a stage two response in mid-May 2025, the Council said it had not offered reablement care because the OT had advised against it. It apologised both for the delay in responding to the complaint and for the limited involvement Miss X had in care planning. It said it completed the initial care needs assessment within the statutory timescale but accepted the face‑to‑face assessment was delayed due to resourcing issues. It explained that differences in professional opinion about Mr Y’s needs were due to legitimate professional judgement, not arbitrary changes. The Council apologised for poor communication about finances, acknowledged the importance of DRE discussions, and accepted it had given incorrect or no information about sheltered housing and carers’ breaks. It also apologised for delay and confusion caused by its poor communication and said it regretted the “numerous discrepancies” that had affected Mr Y’s care and support. As a remedy, it stated it was implementing changes to improve its service and offered Mr Y £250 to recognise hardship and distress.
In its analysis, the Ombudsman noted the Council had accepted it failed to complete care needs assessments within the proper timescale, failed to discuss Mr Y’s care needs with Miss X, and failed to provide her with details of the care provider. The Ombudsman also recorded that the Council accepted it should have given estimates of care costs, provided a financial pack, and held proper discussions about Disability Related Expenses with Miss X and Mr Y. The Council further accepted it should have discussed Miss X’s own needs and possible carers’ breaks or respite, but did not do so. The Ombudsman acknowledged that the Council had tried to put services in place which Mr Y then declined, and noted that Mr Y was now settled with a routine where carers were not needed. The Ombudsman considered the £250 financial remedy offered by the Council to be in line with its published remedies guidance and therefore suitable, and noted that the Council had already taken steps to improve its services following this complaint.
What was found
The Ombudsman found the Council was at fault under the Care Act 2014 for delays in completing care needs assessments and for failing to involve both Mr Y and his carer in those assessments and care planning, contrary to its duty to involve individuals and carers. The Council also failed to provide essential information about the care provider, estimates of care costs, and a financial information pack, and did not properly explain or discuss Disability Related Expenses, breaching expectations around transparent personal budget and charging processes. It did not adequately consider or address Miss X’s own needs as a carer or discuss carers’ breaks and respite options at an early stage, undermining its obligations towards carers’ support. These faults caused avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty to Mr Y and Miss X, and contributed to confusion around services being arranged, cancelled and reconsidered. The Ombudsman accepted the Council’s apologies and its offer of £250 to Mr Y (to recognise hardship and distress) together with a further payment of £250 to both Miss X and Mr Y for distress and frustration, as a proportionate remedy and confirmed that the Council had committed to service improvements; no additional compensation beyond that set out in the decision was ordered.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups and members of the public
Councils must ensure that Care Act assessments are timely, lawful and clearly documented, rather than relying on informal discussions or internal decision-making that is not visible to the person or their family. Community care law emphasises that an assessment must cover all needs that appear to arise from physical or mental impairment, the impact of those needs on wellbeing, and the outcomes the person wishes to achieve, before any decision about eligibility or services is made, and this requires proper involvement of the individual and any carer.
In this report there is absolutely no mention of a decision about Mr Y’s eligibility. The constant emphasis on the Council having no records of the conversations that they had been holding, and the position that it put it in, in a situation where the gentleman and his daughter themselves were undecided, fills us with concern.
Community care case law on assessment and eligibility highlights that the assessment process is the foundation for all later decisions; when a council delays or fragments assessment across multiple contacts without a coherent written record, it risks repeating the error seen in cases where courts have held that an assessment that does not lawfully address needs and wellbeing cannot support later care-planning decisions. In this decision, the Ombudsman criticises delay and lack of clarity but does not explicitly examine whether the assessments themselves met the statutory requirements around considering wellbeing, outcomes and total needs; that is a gap when viewed against public law principles requiring the authority to address all mandatory factors.
Based on the information available on the Bolton Council website as of early 2026, it appears that while they have not explicitly branded their front-end process as “3 Conversations” in public-facing documentation, they are using a strengths-based approach that closely aligns with the principles and methods of the 3 Conversations model.
Here is what the evidence suggests:
Focus on Strengths and “What Matters”: Bolton Council states that their adult social care services “have conversations with you about what you can do rather than what you can’t do”. This aligns with the “strengths and assets” focus of the 3 Conversations approach.
Preventative Approach: They emphasise “Living well at home” and connecting residents with community resources before, or instead of, formal, long-term care. This is central to Conversation 1 (Listen and Connect) of the 3Cs model.
“Home First” Approach: The Council explicitly states that their current programme includes strengthening “our strength-based approaches” with a focus on “Home First”.
Outcome-Focused Assessment: The CQC (Care Quality Commission) reported in February 2026 that Bolton’s social workers focus on “person-centred assessments” and helping residents “regain their independence,” which aligns with the “work intensively” phase (Conversation 2) of the 3Cs model.
Workforce Development: Reports indicate that Bolton is developing a workforce strategy that includes “coproduction and linkages” and a continued focus on shifting from traditional assessments to “strength-based approaches”.
While some other UK local authorities (e.g., Newcastle, West Northamptonshire) openly label their services as “3 Conversations”, Bolton appears to have adopted the core philosophy of “having a conversation” and “connecting to community” rather than focusing solely on a formal assessment process.
And we can see from this report exactly how hopeless that is, at least in this specific situation for this family.
Public law principles also require councils to separate the assessment of needs from questions about how those needs will be met and who will meet them, yet the narrative here shows the council moving quickly from an initial long‑term package decision to arranging a specific care provider and then stepping back when Miss X cancelled, without clearly revisiting the underlying assessment.
We note that the Ombudsman accepts the Council’s explanation about reablement largely at face value and does not test whether its initial hospital‑based assessment lawfully applied these concepts.
A second distinct legal issue concerns the duty to involve carers, which community care law treats as integral to lawful assessment and planning where a family member is plainly providing necessary care. In this case Miss X was clearly providing ongoing care after discharge, yet there is no indication that the Council treated her as a carer for the purposes of a separate carers’ assessment, even though the Ombudsman acknowledges missed opportunities to discuss carers’ breaks; the decision frames this as poor practice and remedy via apology and modest payment, rather than analysing whether the absence of a carers’ assessment amounted to a breach of the specific carers’ assessment duty and associated eligibility test.
Case law on carers’ willingness and ability emphasises that councils must not assume informal care will continue, and must base care plans and personal budgets on clear evidence of what carers are genuinely able to sustain; where carers report strain, authorities are expected to review or revise plans rather than leaving arrangements in limbo.
Here, Miss X’s request for respite and reports of burden suggest a change in circumstances that should have triggered a structured look at her own needs, yet the Ombudsman does not explore whether the Council’s response met the public law standard that requires active consideration of carers’ eligibility and support, rather than generalised reassurance and a one‑off payment.
The third distinct legal issue concerns charging, Disability Related Expenses, and the transparency of financial assessments under the Care Act charging framework. In this case, the Ombudsman accepts that the Council failed to provide proper financial information, but does not fully explore whether the confused and delayed DRE discussions, and the refusal to repeat a financial assessment in the face of new concerns, might have deterred Mr Y from taking up support in a way that conflicts with the duty to ensure people know what they will be charged and can only be asked to pay what is reasonably practicable.
For councils and practitioners, the broader implication is that relying on informal family care after hospital discharge, opaque assessment processes and sketchy financial explanations is not only poor practice but carries clear public law risk, particularly where unpaid carers are holding arrangements together without having had their own rights recognised.
For people using services, carers and advocates, this decision underlines the importance of insisting on a full Care Act assessment that addresses all needs and wellbeing impacts, asking explicitly for a carers’ assessment where necessary care is being provided, and requesting written charging and DRE decisions that can be challenged if they appear to be based on misunderstanding or incomplete information, drawing on community care law where needed.
Please use the following link if you want to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council (25 003 470) 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!