Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to reduce her support hours, following an increase after the birth of her second child. The Council’s decision to reduce Ms X’s support hours was based on inaccurate information. It was therefore flawed which leave the outcome in doubt. The Council needs to reassess Ms X’s needs, apologise and pay financial redress.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, complains about the Council’s decision to reduce her support hours, following an increase after the birth of her second child.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Ms X;
• considered the comments and documents the Council has provided;
• considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies; and
• invited comments on a draft of this statement from Ms X and the Council, for me to consider before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. Ms X has medical conditions which affect her mobility (she cannot weight bear independently), manual dexterity, eyesight and hearing. She uses a wheelchair outside the home and an office chair inside the home.
6. Before the birth of her second child in February 2022, Ms X had a care package which provided for 31 ½ hours a week to meet her need for help with personal care and other activities, including parenting responsibilities for her first child who goes to school. Since January 2022, Ms X has used the direct payments to employ her mother and another person as her personal assistants (PAs).
7. Ms X’s partner helps to meet her needs when her PAs are not there. He receives a carer’s allowance (£880 a year), which he uses to provide respite from his caring responsibilities. He works and attends college one day a week.
8. After the birth of their second child the Council increased the care package to 70 hours a week. Ms X’s care and support plan said the extra hours were to reflect the fact the baby had been born by caesarean section. It said the support would be in place until 10 April. It said Ms X’s partner would return to work in March.
9. After reviewing Ms X’s needs on 5 April, the Council reduced her support to 52 ½ hours a week (8 ½ hours a day Monday to Friday and 5 hours a day at weekends). The review said:
• the wound from the caesarean section had healed on the outside but would take longer to heal on the inside;
• Ms X’s mother had moved into their home and was providing “natural” support in addition to working as a PA;
• Ms X had provided no medical information to justify continuing with 70 hours a week;
• when Ms X said the baby needed changing and feeding hourly and she needed someone to hold the baby in the right position, the Council suggested using the hours flexibly;
• the Council asked Ms X’s partner if he could adjust his working hours or schedule but he refused to discuss this and threatened to sue the Council; and
• the GP and Health Visitor had raised no concerns about the baby and its development.
10. The updated care and support plan said the Council would gradually reduce the care package.
11. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to reduce her care package. When the Council replied to her complaint in May 2022, it said:
• its decision to reduce the care package to 52 ½ hours a week took account of the fact she had made good progress;
• neither Ms X nor other professionals raised concerns about her progress. She had not asked for the midwife, health visitor or physiotherapist to be involved. If she wanted them to be involved in future reviews, it would consult her about how best to do this;
• it had asked her partner questions because he is her carer and to get a clear understanding of her situation;
• it had discussed the feeding and changing routine for her baby to explore ways of making this easier for her;
• the social workers involved in Ms X’s review had not said her baby could be removed and did not have the power to remove the child from her care;
• it disputed the claim that its review had not included a risk assessment; and
• it sought to promote independence, choice and control, which its direct payments achieved.
12. When the Council reviewed Ms X’s care and support plan in June it left the 52 ½ hours in place.
13. Ms X says the Council’s decision was based on inaccurate information. She says her mother did not move into their home and only slept there a few times during the first month after the birth. She says a midwife recommended providing additional support until her baby had settled, not just until her wound had healed. Ms X says her husband is out of the house from 07.00 to 16.30 four days a week and from 07.00 to 18.30 one day a week. She says the reduced hours mean she is without support for nine hours each week.

Is there evidence of fault by the Council which caused injustice?

14. It appears the Council’s decision to reduce Ms X’s hours was based on inaccurate information. As her mother did not move in with them, she was not in a position to provide the flexible support the Council referred to. Nor could she have provided the “natural” support the Council referred to, other than on the few occasions she slept over in Ms X’s home. It appears the Council assumed her mother would continue to provide a significant amount of ad hoc support when that was not the case. That means its decision was flawed.
15. The Council needs to reassess Ms X’s needs, ensuring any decision is based on accurate information. It needs to check with Ms X what other professionals should be involved. If at the end of the process there is still a dispute over whether the hours are enough to meet Ms X’s needs, the Council needs to set out in the care and support plan how they can be used to meet all her needs.

Back to top

Agreed action

16. I recommended the Council within four weeks:
• writes to Ms X apologising for its errors;
• pays her £250 for the time and trouble involved in pursuing her complaint; and
• reassesses her needs based on accurate information and involving the professionals she wants to be involved.

The Council has agreed to do this.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have completed my investigation on the basis there has been fault by the Council casing injustice which requires a remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman