Summary: Ms X complained the Council wrongly ended her care package for her adult social care needs and did not respond to her concerns. We find no fault in how the Council made its decision and responded to her concerns.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about how the Council handled her adult social care needs. In particular she complains the Council:
1. Took account of irrelevant and inaccurate information which resulted in a biased decision to end her care package.
2. Wrongly decided to end her care package following a review.
3. Failed to respond to her concerns when she complained.
2. She says the decision to end her care package caused significant harm to her mental health, and isolation from her family and the community.
3. She would like the Council to reinstate her care package and make sure the providers they hire are suitable.

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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
7. 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

8. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Ms X 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

Law and guidance

Assessment

10. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. They must provide an assessment to everyone regardless of their finances or whether the council thinks the person has eligible needs. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the results they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where suitable their carer or any other person they might want involved.

Care Plan

11. The Care Act 2014 gives councils a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan (or a support plan for a carer). 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.
12. The courts have found while a person’s preferences had to be taken into account, these had to be distinguished from their needs for care. The court of appeal commented that ‘there is no duty to achieve the outcomes which the adult wishes to achieve; rather it is a duty to assess whether the provision of care and support could contribute to those outcomes’. (R (Davey) v Oxfordshire County Council).

Reviews

13. Section 27 of the Care Act 2014 says councils should keep care and support plans under review. Government Care and Support Statutory Guidance says councils should review plans at least every 12 months. Councils should consider a light touch review six to eight weeks after agreeing and signing off the plan and personal budget. They should carry out reviews as quickly as is reasonably practicable in a timely manner proportionate to the needs to be met. Councils must also conduct a review if an adult or a person acting on the adult’s behalf makes a reasonable request for one.

What happened

14. Ms X has mental health conditions. The Council had previously carried out an assessment. It assessed her has having eligible care needs. It provided a care plan and care package of 15 hours of care per week.
15. In early February 2025 the Council reviewed Ms X’s care plan. Ms X’s care provider had given notice. It was going to stop providing her care soon. The outcome of the review was to source a new care provider to continue providing 15 hours of care per week. A new care provider started shortly after the review.
16. At the end of March the Council was involved in a meeting with health professionals from different organisations. The meeting discussed Ms X’s mental health care needs.
17. Also at the end of March the Council met with Ms X and discussed her care. It recorded Ms X wanted notice to be given to her current care provider.
18. In mid-April the Council reviewed Ms X’s care plan again. It recorded Ms X had started not to engage with support from her care provider. It recorded that Ms X had asked for her care provider to be given notice, which had happened.
19. The Council concluded in its review that Ms X was independent in her care and support needs, did not require ongoing support from a provider, and would be referred to health professionals. It therefore ended the care package of 15 hours per week.
20. Ms X raised a stage one complaint shortly after the review. She complained about instances of poor care going back to mid-2024. She also complained the Council had taken account of historical matters that showed the decision was biased. Ms X asked the Council to reinstate her care package.
21. The Council responded to Ms X’s stage one complaint in mid-May. It apologised for the delay in getting back to her. It said it had carefully considered her request to reinstate her care package. It concluded it would not do so because it would not be the most appropriate way to meet her needs. It acknowledged Ms X’s concerns about how it had recorded the historical matters in the review.
22. Ms X asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage two at the end of May.
23. The Council sent Ms X its final stage two response at the end of June. It said it had reviewed her complaint. It maintained its decision to end her care package. It said it was happy to continue working with Ms X to help identify community resources and other engagement opportunities.
24. Ms X complained to us in July 2025.

Analysis

25. I address each part of Ms X’s complaint in turn below.

a) Complaint the Council took account of inaccurate and irrelevant information when reviewing her care needs which resulted in a biased decision to end her care package.

26. I note the Council recorded historical matters in the review paperwork. I have also seen evidence of some of the matters recorded in an earlier care needs assessment, and a letter Ms X provided.
27. I have decided there is not enough evidence for me to find whether every detail regarding the historical matters were accurate. However, based on the evidence I have seen and on the balance of probabilities, I find the matters recorded were broadly accurate and relevant to Ms X’s care. For these reasons I do not find the Council at fault for recording the matters in the reviews.
28. I note the Council did not decide to end the care package after the first review despite recording the matters. I have also seen no evidence the Council’s decision to end her care package after the second review was based mainly on the historical matters.
29. The evidence shows the Council’s decision was based on a wide range of old and new evidence it had gathered from Ms X, her carers and other organisations involved in her care. For these reasons I do not find the Council made a biased decision based on inaccurate and irrelevant information.

b) Complaint the Council wrongly decided to end her care package following the review.

30. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
31. The evidence shows the Council made its decision to end Ms X’s care package following a review of her care plan. Its decision was based on a wide range of old and new evidence it had gathered from Ms X, her carers and other organisations involved in her care.
32. Taken as a whole, I find the Council followed the law and statutory guidance when it made its decision and I do not find it at fault. I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.

c) Complaint the Council failed to respond to her concerns when she complained.

33. The Council’s complaint policy says it will aim to respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days, and stage two complaints within 20 working days.
34. In this case the Council took 22 working days at stage one. The Council updated Ms X and apologised during the stage one delay. For this reason I have decided the stage one delay does not amount to fault.
35. I find no fault in the stage two response timescale because the Council took 18 working days to respond.
36. I have considered the content of both the stage one and two responses. I find they are written in clear plain language. They lay out the Council’s understanding of the complaint; its decision and reasons; outstanding actions; and how to escalate the matter to us.
37. I also note the Council responded to Ms X’s general requests for updates and other information throughout the period I have investigated. It stage two response also concluded it was happy to continue working with Ms X. It named a social worker that had contacted Ms X to discuss options available.
38. For these reasons I find no evidence the Council failed to respond to Ms X’s concerns. I therefore do not find it at fault.

Back to top

Decision

39. For the reasons explained in the analysis section I find no fault in the ways the Council decided to end Ms X’s care package and responded to her concerns. I do not uphold Ms X’s complaint. I have finished my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman