Date of decision: 16 March 2026
Summary
A disabled young man’s mother complained that the Council failed to implement an agreed 70‑hour weekly care package after her son transitioned to Adult Social Care, and refused to fund her, her husband and her son’s uncle as Personal Assistants.
The Ombudsman found no fault in the Council’s decision, as it properly considered all relevant information and offered care via alternative Personal Assistants, which the young man himself refused.
What happened
The young man, Y, lived with his parents and had been supported by Children’s Services with 35 hours per week of care.
In November 2024, a Care Act assessment noted Y’s condition had deteriorated over the previous 12 months and that Y initially considered supported accommodation but later decided he wanted to remain at home with his mother as his main Personal Assistant.
The assessment also noted Y’s uncle was prepared to act as a PA, particularly at weekends, though he was reviewing his role due to his own family commitments. The family also acknowledged their home was not suitable to meet Y’s needs and expressed concerns about proposed adaptations, feeling let down by delays in services and equipment, which they attributed to council budget constraints.
In January 2025, when Y turned 18 and transitioned to Adult Social Services responsibility, there were numerous emails between the family and the Council about arranging direct payments to fund family members as Y’s PAs. A Continuing Health Care assessment in early 2025 was declined, but taking this into account, the Council agreed in principle to provide funding for 70 hours of care, based on needs identified during the CHC assessment, reflecting that care needed to be double‑handed (two carers were needed for safe moving and handling).
Mr and Mrs X initially requested significantly more hours, but later agreed to accept 70 hours. Mrs X expressed a preference for an outside agency to manage taxes and payments.
The Council explained it needed to establish details of how care would be delivered before it could be put in place, including who would provide what care and when, whether Mr and Mrs X were able to use the equipment provided, and if care was being delivered safely.
Officers asserted that they could not and would not commission or fund care that may be unsafe for Y or for Mr and Mrs X. The Council also needed to establish contingency measures if Y’s parents were ill or unable to fulfil their caring roles. The Council also asserted it could not agree to someone acting as a PA also managing Y’s personal budget, as this would create a conflict of interest.
At a professionals’ meeting in February 2025, medical professionals stated Y had missed several important appointments and reviews, which was of concern.
An OT assessment in February confirmed that two carers would be needed for manual handling. At the end of February, the Council met with Mr and Mrs X to discuss Y’s care needs and how they would be fulfilled. Officers understood Mrs X wished to be a main carer with Y’s uncle, but noted Y’s uncle could not provide support all of the time. The Council asked if there were other relatives or family friends who could act as PAs. It stated that agency carers working with Mrs X might be possible but present a challenge, and noted that more fundamental contingency plans were still needed.
The Council considered it necessary to meet Y’s uncle to ensure he understood Y’s care and support needs and to establish if he needed training for moving and handling. A meeting with Y’s uncle had not yet been made possible by the family.
At a meeting in March 2025 with Y’s parents, the Council explained it needed to ensure both the carers and Y would be safe and sought clarity about the arrangements for Y’s care. Because there was a lack of clarity about care arrangements, the Council stated it could not agree to Mrs X being Y’s PA. The Council sent a follow‑up email to Mr X to explain its concerns. As the family stated it did not want outside carers, the Council decided to speak to Y directly to understand his views and consent.
In early and mid‑March, Council officers visited Y while he was at college. They explained their concerns and asked Y for his view. Y indicated that he did not want formal carers and wanted his parents to look after him.
After taking legal advice, the Council determined it would not fund care for Y to be delivered by family members in the same household, meeting the parents to explain this. The Council asked if the family could propose people who did not live with them to act as formal PAs so the Council could put a package of care in place. The Council stated that whoever was managing the direct payment would need to recruit two PAs. Officers explained they were not removing the parents’ role as informal carers, but formal carers were needed to ensure a safe package of care was in place for Y. The Council wished to provide a package of care but could not agree to fund Mr and Mrs X as PAs for the reasons it had already discussed with them.
In late March, the Council made a referral for an advocate for Y. The advocate visited in April and spoke with Y, who confirmed he wished to live at home and receive care from his parents. He would not want care from others, even if his parents were unable to provide care for any reason.
In April 2025, ceiling track hoists were installed at Mr and Mrs X’s home, and bathing equipment was also provided and installed.
In May 2025, a moving and handling assessment took place. The assessor noted various equipment the family had to manage Y’s needs, including ceiling tracks and hoists, a profiling bed, bathing equipment and a stair climber for use on the stairs. The assessor noted that, at present, the family were manually lifting Y on and off the stair climber and wheelchair when downstairs, and noted a ceiling track hoist (or mobile hoist) was needed downstairs to avoid this. However, the family had declined this.
Following further legal advice in mid‑2025, the Council again decided it could not provide funding for Y’s parents or uncle to act as PAs for Y. The Council noted that Y had capacity to make decisions and had decided he would only accept care from his parents. The Council had provided an advocate to discuss this with Y and ensure he understood the situation. The Council wrote to Y to explain its decision in detail and also attempted to meet Y at college to explain the letter, but Y declined to see the officers.
The letter made clear the Council strongly believed a package of care was needed for Y, but this could not be provided using his parents as PAs. The Council stated it had faced various barriers to providing care for Y and, despite the efforts of various officers and professionals, it had been unable to overcome these.
The Council explained why and noted it had offered a package of care to provide Y with two carers. This remained something the Council could provide, and the Council would work with Y to develop a safe package of care if they had his co-operation and understanding of the issues.
Mrs X told the Ombudsman no care or support had been provided from the point Y became 18, despite Y requiring care and having eligible needs. She stated the social worker did not check how they were coping and did not offer any options or temporary care arrangements. Mrs X complained to the Council, stating that social workers had not been consistent and made excuses for not providing care.
The Council did not uphold Mrs X’s complaint and reiterated its position about care arrangements for Y. Mrs X then brought a complaint to the Ombudsman.
What was found
The Ombudsman found no fault in the Council’s decision not to agree to fund Mr and Mrs X and Y’s uncle as his Personal Assistants.
The Direct Payment regulations state that providing Direct Payments for care from close family members living in the same household is generally not allowed and is only permitted by exception where it is necessary. The Council took account of the relevant regulations, government guidance, and its direct payment policy in making its decision. The Council sought information from Mr and Mrs X on a number of different occasions to satisfy itself that any care provided by Mr and Mrs X and/or Y’s uncle would be carried out safely and would meet Y’s needs, but it did not get the reassurances it needed. Y’s uncle did not meet officers so they could assess his suitability, availability and willingness to act as Y’s PA.
The Council recorded concerns that Mr and Mrs X were not always using equipment and providing Y’s care in a safe manner, and found they had been resistant to officers’ attempts to address these concerns.
As the Council could not agree to Mr and Mrs X being Y’s PAs, it proposed a package of care with other PAs being employed. Y and Mr and Mrs X were adamant they would only agree to care being provided by Mr and Mrs X (and possibly Y’s uncle).
The Ombudsman found no fault in the Council’s approach to speaking with Y alone. Y is an adult, and as Y’s decision meant the Council could not put a care package in place, the Council made sure he understood the situation and had capacity to make this decision. The Council met with Y alone and arranged for advocacy for him. It was satisfied that Y did have capacity to make this decision, and he was able to articulate his views. This was appropriate and good practice in this situation, as there were significant implications of the decision.
Because the Council was aware that Y had eligible needs and could not provide a package of care as the situation stood, it also took legal advice. The Council wrote a detailed letter to Y to explain its decision (and also tried to meet with him to explain in person). The letter stated the Council was willing to put care in place, but would need Y’s engagement and agreement to find alternative carers to do so. The Ombudsman considered the decision was properly explained, and not an abandonment of a person without the opportunity to change his mind.
The Ombudsman recognised the situation was difficult and that Y did not wish to receive care from formal carers, preferring to receive care from Mr and Mrs X only. However, the Council explained why it did not consider it was able to fund care via Mr and Mrs X. The Ombudsman considered this was a difficult decision but one the Council was entitled to make, and concluded the Council had reached its decision properly, having regard for the law and input from other professionals. The Ombudsman stated it is open to Y to discuss any concerns he has about formal carers with the Council or via an advocate to seek a way forward and to try to overcome these concerns to enable him to receive the care he needs.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups and members of the public
We think that this is an excellent decision, unpalatable though that might be to readers.
Neither the Council nor the investigator treated the bar on direct payments to close relatives in the same household (found in the Direct Payment Regulations 2014) as if it were an almost absolute rule, rather than a general prohibition with a structured exception where such an arrangement is necessary.
Proper consideration of necessity is one thing; satisfaction as to safety and willingness of those involved to abide by reasonable conditions, or the client’s ability to ensure that those caring for him stick to those rules, however, is another.
Nobody was saying it wasn’t necessary, here, but that doesn’t mean that it was an appropriate way of meeting needs if the very people providing the care weren’t always going to be there, weren’t prepared to make a rota or meet with the council to satisfy them of their appropriateness, or use equipment as advised. Declining equipment that could have made it safer was their choice, if they owned the home, but it was a choice that impacted on their son.
If a person in Y’s position were ABLE to insist on paid parental care, simply by refusing care from anyone else, then it would defeat the policy intention behind the prohibition (not to incentivise relatives to ask to be paid, it might be described as!).
The report is not necessarily perfect, we have to say, however.
Whether HE understood that sufficiently to make the decision to refuse care from outsiders, of course, is another matter, despite the Council’s satisfaction that he had capacity to do so. We are not sure whether his advocate would have been sufficiently well informed in public law principles as to be able to convey to him the unpalatable information that his decision would be making life difficult for his parents, or what his own legal position was if he refused care! The fact that there was a complaint simply underlines that nobody really seemed to understand the basis for the decision at the time. But if he DID, then the Muriqi Kujtim case law decision indicates that a capacitated person can be regarded as refusing care, and that this discharges the duty to meet needs.
In this report, Mrs X says no care or support was provided after Y turned 18, despite his eligible needs, and that the social worker did not check how the family was coping or offer interim arrangements. The Ombudsman does not analyse whether the council should have recognised an urgent need to revisit the care plan, or to consider carers’ assessments and support, in light of evidence that the parents were the only people actually providing essential double‑handed care. Instead, the decision is framed as a binary choice between no package at all and a package delivered by non‑family PAs, without explicit consideration of statutory duties towards carers who are plainly providing necessary care.
In this case, Y had capacity, made it clear he would only accept care from his parents, and refused contact aimed at exploring alternatives. The Council took legal advice, wrote to Y setting out its position, and offered a package using external PAs, which he rejected. The Ombudsman accepts this as a lawful outcome but does not squarely address the legal tension between the ongoing duty to meet eligible needs and the reality that, on the ground, no funded care was in place because all offered options were declined. A fuller public law analysis would have asked whether the council considered exercising preventive or interim powers to put some support in place while continuing to negotiate with Y, or whether the situation had reached the point where, in community care law terms, the council’s duty was discharged because the only options it could lawfully offer had been refused with capacity.
For councils and practitioners, the broader implication is that they must avoid treating the “close relative in the same household” rule as a trump card that removes the need for individualised judgment, must actively recognise carers who are providing necessary care as central to lawful assessment and planning, and must document how they have balanced the duty to meet eligible needs with respect for a capacitated person’s refusal of all but one form of provision – because the rights and freedoms of others, are then involved. If community care law is able to be cited explicitly in local policies and decision‑making records, it means that if challenged, councils can demonstrate they have grappled with these issues rather than relying on formulaic references to regulations and guidance.
Please use the following link if you want to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s West Northamptonshire Council (25 005 251) 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!