Summary: Mr X complained the Council decided to reduce his son’s weekly care hours even though it had been agreed there were no changes in his needs. We did not find the Council at fault for how it decided this.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council decided to reduce his adult son’s weekly care hours from 43.5 to 35 without justification, despite a meeting where all parties agreed there were no changes to his son’s needs. Mr X says this has caused significant frustration and anxiety about how it would negatively impact on his son’s overall mental and physical wellbeing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, 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 an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have investigated events from August 2024 to November 2024 (when Mr X received the Council’s final response to his formal complaint). The Council changed the hours in December 2024. I am investigating the Council’s decision about the hours, rather than events after this. I have briefly referred to events since for relevant context.
5. We expect councils to have the opportunity to formally consider new or ongoing matters under its formal complaints procedure first before we investigate. Mr X is entitled to make a new complaint direct to the Council if he is dissatisfied with what has happened after November 2024.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I discussed the complaint with Mr X, who is bringing the complaint on behalf of his son (“Mr Y”) and considered his views.
7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and administrative background

Care plan assessment and reviews

9. The Care Act 2014 gives councils a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan. The care and support plan should consider what needs the person has, what they want to achieve, what they can do by themselves or with existing support and what care and support may be available in the local area. When preparing a care and support plan the council must involve any carer the adult has. The support plan must include a personal budget, which is the money the council has worked out it will cost to arrange the necessary care and support for that person.
10. The guidance says reviews in general must not be used to arbitrarily reduce a care and support package. However, it says there are occasions when a change to a plan is required but there has been no change in levels of need.
11. In determining how to meet needs, the council may take into reasonable consideration its own finances and budgetary position, and must comply with its related public law duties. This includes the importance of ensuring that the funding available to the council is sufficient to meet the needs of the entire local population. A council may reasonably consider how to balance that requirement with the duty to meet the eligible needs of an individual in determining how an individual’s needs should be met.

Background

12. At the time of events, Mr X’s adult son (“Mr Y”) lived in supported accommodation, within an independent unit, for several years. He is a wheelchair user with physical and learning disabilities. He received domiciliary care from support workers at his accommodation (“the Care Provider”). He received 43.5 hours a week.

What happened – summary of key relevant events

13. In early August 2024, the Council carried out a care review for Mr Y, with Mr X present. The case notes said Mr Y and Mr X were happy with the current care he received.
14. In mid-September 2024, a Council case note recorded the social worker had reviewed the Care Provider’s daily care logs, and it appeared some extra hours were not required. They noted a lot of time used without significant tasks being completed. They felt Mr Y’s care needs could continue to be met with reduced hours as they seemed excessive.
15. The Council sent Mr X and Mr Y a copy of the completed review and strengths-based assessment. The cover letter said at that stage, it was reviewing the hours as there appeared to be discrepancy with what Mr Y required, and it would likely decrease the hours based on his current needs.
16. Mr X formally complained. Mr X said at the review everyone agreed Mr Y’s care needs remained unchanged for several years and the care hours should remain. He said the Council was acting against statutory guidance. This said reviews should not be used to arbitrarily reduce care and support and any reduction should be due to a change in need or circumstances. He said a decrease would impact on Mr Y’s overall wellbeing. Mr X also said the review misrepresented and overstated Mr Y’s abilities when he had a high dependency on carers. Mr X had concerns about Mr Y’s capacity relating to his needs.
17. At the end of September 2024, the Council responded at Stage One. In line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, a person must be assumed to have capacity to make their own decisions unless proven otherwise. It was satisfied Mr Y was able to understand, retain and weigh up relevant information. It acknowledged Mr Y required support with more complex decisions and Mr X’s support in the review process was appropriate as a suitable advocate.
18. The Council said it was working to embed a strengths-based approach to adult social care. It would work with people to identify their strengths and capabilities to support them to live the life they want. It was satisfied the review was balanced in reflecting Mr Y’s strengths as well as his needs. It acknowledged Mr Y’s fundamental needs had not changed but it was considering increases to his independence with reviewing the level of support to achieve Mr Y’s outcomes.
19. In October 2024, the social worker amended the review with Mr X’s suggested changes. They sent Mr X a spreadsheet of the average week of support hours provided to Mr Y by the Care Provider, including hours spent watching TV with him and playing board games.
20. The social worker remained of the view that they needed to consider a reduction as daily tasks were generally taking longer than required. This could be trialled and reviewed. They made a referral to Occupational Therapy to assess if adaptations could be made to increase Mr Y’s independence and lessen his reliance on carers for tasks. They said the Care Provider should contact Mr X and Mr Y around suitable social outings to limit his isolation. The social worker also contacted the Care Provider for their views.
21. At the start of November 2024, the Council sent its Stage Two response to Mr X’s complaint. It added the Care Provider agreed Mr Y had capacity and they took direction from him to do as he needed and requested. While the reduction was not what he wanted, the Council was satisfied by taking a strength-based approach, the social worker had explored how Mr Y’s needs could be met alongside promoting his independence.
22. In early December 2024, the social worker emailed Mr X. They confirmed Mr Y’s package would be 35 hours a week and the Care Provider said it would be able to provide Mr Y’s support in these hours. The hours were for Mr Y to use as he wished, and he should discuss with the Care Provider how it should be divided up for the tasks needed.
23. Mr X phoned the Council with his dissatisfaction. He wanted Mr Y to have extra hours to ensure he had companionship and conversations to reduce his sense of isolation. The Council noted his frustrations and advised it would conduct a review in three months’ time to check how the hours were working.
24. The review and support plan included an outcome Mr Y wanted to achieve; to access more community activities and outings but he would need staff to support with this.
25. In mid-December 2024, the hours started, and Mr X complained to us.
26. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it had started a review of Mr Y’s care in April 2025 and was ongoing. It was later than intended due to other demands.

Analysis

27. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision and take our own view on it. Rather, we look at the processes a council has followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question the merits of the decision, regardless of how strongly a complainant disagrees with it.

Communication at and after the review meting

28. Mr X said at the August 2024 review meeting that all parties agreed Mr Y’s care package should remain the same as he had no change in need. There are no contemporaneous meeting notes. But I have seen a brief case record of the meeting which said “[Mr Y] is happy with everything as is and his family are also happy with the care he is receiving. No changes to package required”.
29. I recognise Mr X’s expectation based on the meeting, but there is no clear evidence this was an explicit agreement at the time. Even if the Council did initially agree this in the meeting, the Council then reviewed the care hours, promptly sent over the review and within this, communicated and explained why it was now considering a reduction at this stage. It may have been a change of view, but it was entitled to do this after further consideration of information it had. I do not criticise the Council for this.

Decision to reduce hours

30. Mr X asserts Mr Y’s needs have not changed, so there is no justification for a reduction. However, as stated above, the Council noted this but has given other reasons why. In the Council’s s view, Mr Y’s hours were excessive to meet his social care needs. The Council is entitled to query how hours are being used to ensure outcomes are achieved at best value; I do not find it at fault for considering this.
31. In support, the social worker shared spreadsheet evidence with the number of hours taken for tasks. The social worker made observations based on these and considered the proportionate time needed came to around 30 hours. The Council said the Care Provider met his needs, but the rest of the time was being used to meet ineligible social needs. It said Mr Y could utilise some of the remaining funded hours for support to access the community should he wish.
32. Mr X and the Council may have different approaches about how Mr Y’s needs for socialisation can be met but that does not mean the Council is at fault for how it has decided this was a proportionate way towards this noted outcome.
33. On balance, I consider the Council is not at fault in how it made its decision to reduce Mr Y’s care hours. It had a focus on a strengths-based approach around independence and capabilities, which is not fault. The social worker reviewed relevant evidence, took account of Mr Y’s eligible needs and outcomes, and considered the views of Mr X and the Care Provider. It explained its reasons. I appreciate Mr X strongly disagreed with the Council’s decision and disputed Mr Y’s needs could be met with these hours, however these are matters of professional judgement. It was a decision the Council was entitled to make. As I have not identified fault in the process, I cannot question the merits of it or say it should have reached a different outcome.
34. At the time of the decision, the Council also planned a future date for it to review Mr Y’s care to check progress. This is appropriate. I note the Council appears to have delayed with this, however any dissatisfaction with this and any resulting outcomes within it, or since the hours were instated, are not in the scope of this investigation (see Paragraphs 4-5).

Back to top

Decision

35. I did not find fault with the Council. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman