Summary: The Council was not at fault for its decision about the funding of Miss X’s social care provision. This decision was made in consideration of available evidence and was based on professional opinion, which we have no power to question. However, the Council was at fault for a delay in reviewing Miss X’s support plan. This caused her mother – who was expecting an earlier review – an injustice, for which the Council has agreed to apologise.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y is dissatisfied with the Council’s decision to withdraw funding for her daughter, a disabled adult whom I refer to as Miss X, to attend a programme run by a local youth theatre (which I refer to as ‘the theatre provision’).
2. Although the Council’s decision to stop the funding for the theatre provision is too old for us to look at, Mrs Y complains that:
• The Council promised to review the funding (or lack thereof). But this review (which was due to take place in March 2024) was significantly delayed.
• The Council updated Miss X’s needs assessment in July 2024 and confirmed its decision not to fund the theatre provision. In doing so, it failed to properly consider information provided by Mrs Y and others, and it ignored clear evidence of the benefit of the provision.
• Although the Council offered alternatives for Miss X in October 2024, these were neither comparable nor suitable.
3. Mrs Y says the withdrawal of the funding (and, subsequently, the refusal to reinstate it) have caused Miss X distress, as there has been so much uncertainty around the theatre provision. She also says she herself has suffered a financial injustice, as she has felt it necessary to “self-fund a service critical to [Miss X’s] life”.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mrs Y and the Council.
8. Mrs Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

9. In December 2023, the Council ended its funding for Miss X’s theatre provision.
10. Mrs Y complained to the Council about this. She said the withdrawal of the provision would have a negative impact on Miss X, as it was helping her meet her developmental outcomes. She asked for the funding to be reinstated.
11. The Council refused Mrs Y’s request and said the theatre provision was not needed because Miss X’s new placement would help her meet the same outcomes.
12. The Council also said, however, that it would review Miss X’s support in March 2024 and, if the removal of the theatre provision had had a significant impact on her wellbeing, it would reconsider its decision.
13. Miss X’s social worker was then unavoidably absent from work for some time. In July 2024, after she had returned, the Council reviewed Miss X’s needs and her support as part of an assessment under the Care Act 2014.
14. In the support plan at the end of the assessment – under the outcome, ‘being part of my community, family and social network’ – the Council noted that Miss X continued to attend the theatre provision twice a week (although this was not funded by the Council). It also listed various other ways in which this outcome would be met (none of which involved the theatre provision).
15. The Council decided not to overturn its decision to stop funding Miss X’s theatre provision. It said her placement would need “to look at other avenues for [her] to explore and gain new skills”.
16. The Council also noted that Miss X’s placement had offered to reduce her one-to-one hours in order to free up funding for the theatre provision. But it decided this would not be appropriate, because she needed all her one-to-one support (and may, in fact, already have been accessing more support from the placement than the Council was paying for).
17. The Council did, though, ask the theatre provision if it was able to part-fund
    Miss X’s placement. It replied that it was not, because of a lack of other funding.
    
     
18. In October, the Council emailed Mrs Y, suggesting options for Miss X. These were:
• For Miss X to attend the theatre provision only half the time, which would mean she could afford to pay for it herself.
• Voluntary opportunities at another local theatre.
• A review of her benefits to make sure she was getting everything she was entitled to.
19. Mrs Y did not think any of the Council’s alternatives were appropriate. She said:
• Halving the theatre provision would not work because Miss X “would be missing half the input so would continually be trying to catch up on all the material and input that she misses”.
• Miss X would be interested in voluntary opportunities, but only as an addition to the theatre provision, not instead of it.
• Miss X’s benefits were up to date.
• She wanted a meeting with Miss X’s social worker’s manager.
20. The Council held a meeting with Mrs Y in January 2025 but remained of the view that Miss X’s eligible needs could be met by her placement.

My findings

Delay

21. In January 2024, the Council told Mrs Y that it would review Miss X’s support and would, potentially, reconsider its decision to stop its funding for her theatre provision. But it did not do so until July, because Miss X’s social worker was off work for a prolonged period.
22. The social worker’s absence was not something either she or the Council could control. However, whatever the reason for the delay, the Council did promise
    Mrs Y that it would review Miss X’s support in March 2024, and it did not do so, for which it was at fault. I see no good reason why it would have been prevented from doing the review while the social worker was off work.
23. This delay likely caused Mrs Y some injustice in the form of uncertainty, as she was expecting an earlier review, and had to wait for it. The Council should apologise to her for this.
24. However, it is unlikely that the delay caused Miss X any significant injustice, because the eventual review did not lead to the change in funding which Mrs Y had been hoping for.

Funding for Miss X’s theatre provision

25. It is not our role to interfere in a council’s operational decision-making. Nor can I substitute a council officer’s judgment for my own.
26. Although Mrs Y has quite clearly explained why, in her opinion, the theatre provision significantly helps Miss X, my view on whether the Council should reinstate the funding, if I had one, would be irrelevant.
27. Instead, our role is to decide whether the Council made its decision without procedural fault.
     
28. I note that:
• The Council considered the input provided by Mrs Y and others, including
  Miss X’s placement and the theatre provision itself.
• Although Miss X’s support plan said she attended the theatre provision (which, as far as I know, she still does, albeit unfunded), there is no requirement in the plan for her to do so.
• Instead, the outcome the support plan aims to help Miss X achieve is for her to be part of her ‘community, family and social network’. Although there is no suggestion that her placement (or, indeed, any other provision) can deliver the exact benefits which the theatre provision does, the Council has decided this outcome can be met through a combination of other support. This is a professional opinion which I have no power to question.
• When Miss X’s placement offered to reduce her one-to-one hours to help fund the theatre provision, the Council considered this request and provided a professional opinion – that it would potentially be detrimental to Miss X to reduce her hours – which I am also unable to question.
• Although Mrs Y is of the view that the alternatives suggested by the Council would be inferior to the theatre provision, again I cannot question its opinion that the combination of Miss X’s placement and some other options would help her meet the relevant outcome in her support plan.
29. Given the prominence that the theatre provision has in Miss X’s life, and given the excellent reviews of the provision I have seen from Mrs Y and from Miss X’s placement, I understand why Mrs Y is so determined that Miss X continue her attendance.
30. However, for the reasons I have given above, there was no significant or obvious procedural fault in how the Council has considered this matter. Because of this, I have no power to question the Council’s decision not to reinstate the funding.

Back to top

Action

31. Within four weeks, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs Y for the delay in reviewing Miss X’s support plan in 2024. We publish guidance which sets out what we expect an effective apology to look like. The Council will consider this guidance when writing to Mrs Y.
32. The Council will provide us with evidence it has sent this apology letter.

Back to top

Decision

33. The Council was not at fault for its decision-making on Miss X’s social care provision. It was, however, at fault for a delay in reviewing her support plan. This caused Mrs Y an injustice, which the Council will now take action to address.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman