Summary: Mrs Y complained about the Council’s failure to assess her son’s care needs before reducing his support. We found no fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains about the Council’s decision to reduce her son’s (Mr X’s) support of two carers from 15 hours to five hours per day without an assessment.
2. She says it meant Mr X became socially isolated and his behaviour became challenging due to his frustration. This decision also caused her significant distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
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

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have not investigated anything that happened after mid-July 2025 when the Council responded to Mrs Y’s complaint. This is because, as explained in paragraph five, the Council should have an opportunity to respond to any concerns before we investigate them.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

10. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance (the Guidance) provides details of councils’ duties towards their residents with eligible social care needs and rules for carrying out reviews of their care and support plans.
11. Care and support should put people in control of their care, with the support that they need to enhance their wellbeing and improve their connections to family, friends and community. A vital part of this process for people with ongoing needs which the local authority is going to meet is the care and support plan or support plan in the case of carers. (paragraph 10.1)
12. Reviews should be proportionate to the needs to be met, and the process should not contain any surprises for the person concerned. Periodic reviews and reviews in general must not be used to arbitrarily reduce a care and support package. Such behaviour would be unlawful under the Act as the personal budget must always be an amount appropriate to meet the person’s needs. Any reduction to a personal budget should be the result of a change in need or circumstance. (paragraph 13.33)
13. Where a decision has been made following a review that a revision is necessary the council should inform the person or a person acting on their behalf of the decision. If the circumstances have changed in a way that affects a care and support plan, the council must carry out a needs assessment and then revise the plan accordingly. The assessment process following a review should pick up from what is already known about the person and be proportionate. (paragraphs 13.26 and 13.27)

What happened

14. Mr X does not have mental capacity to make decisions about his care. The court appointed Mrs Y and her husband as Mr X’s deputies.
15. In October 2023 Mr X moved to a new supported living accommodation (the Flat).
16. At the beginning of February 2025 Mr X’s social worker (the Social Worker) invited Mrs Y to the annual review of her son’s care and support plan. Mrs Y and the Social Worker agreed the date for a meeting.
17. In mid-February 2025 the Council carried out a review of Mr X’s care and support plan. At the time of the review Mr X was receiving 15 hours of support from two members of staff (2:1 support) in addition to the shared waking night support. In this decision I will refer to the care provider supplying staff to support Mr X as the Care Provider.
18. The review notes stated:
• the Care Provider did not demonstrate how 2:1 support was used;
• Mrs Y had not been aware of the number of hours allocated for Mr X and did not think he needed such high level of support;
• Mr X settled in well and he seemed happy in the Flat.
19. The Council decided to reduce Mr X’s 2:1 support in two stages:
• from the second week of March 2025 reducing support to ten hours daily;
• from mid-July 2025 reducing support to five hours daily. This was to ensure that Mr X received 2:1 support for the community access.
20. At the end of April 2025 the Council arranged a review of Mr X’s amended support. The Care Provider and Mrs Y took part in this review. The Council noted improvement in Mr X’s behaviour since he had moved to the Flat. The Council agreed to keep ten hours of 2:1 support for another eight weeks after which his support would reduce to five hours a day.
21. A medical professional involved in Mr X’s care contacted the Social Worker at the end of May 2025. He told the Social Worker that Mr X’s medication had recently been increased due to worsening of his mental health. The Social Worker explained the Council’s reasons for reducing Mr X’s 2:1 support.
22. In mid-June 2025 the Social Worker told the Care Provider and Mrs Y about the reduction of Mr X’s 2:1 support to five hours a day from the end of June 2025. After liaison with the Care Provider the Council delayed this by a month.
23. At the end of June 2025 Mrs Y complained. She asked the Council not to reduce Mr X’s 2:1 support from ten hours to five without carrying out a Care Act assessment.
24. In mid-July 2025 Mrs Y asked the Council to reassess Mr X’s care needs.
25. The following day the Council responded to Mrs Y’s complaint.

Analysis

26. I did not find fault in the Council’s actions between February and mid-July 2025. This is because:
• it was legitimate for the Council to review Mr X’s care and support plan after his transition to the Flat;
• the Social Worker involved Mrs Y in the review of Mr X’s care and support plan. She took part in the meeting and expressed her views;
• Mrs Y agreed 15 hours of 2:1 support for Mr X was excessive;
• the Council planned to reduce Mr X’s 2:1 support gradually; and
• after the first reduction of 2:1 support the Council carried out a review, in which Mrs Y participated.
27. Mrs Y was concerned that the Council had failed to carry out a Care Act assessment for Mr X before changing his support arrangements. I consider in the circumstances it would be disproportionate to carry out a full care needs assessment for Mr X. There is no evidence his needs changed. His circumstances, however, did change as in the autumn 2023 he moved to a new supported living accommodation with the Care Provider’s support. Afte a transition period, which was likely to be challenging for Mr X, the Council carried out a review to check how the support funded by the Council was used and whether Mr X still needed the full package of support.
28. Before revising Mr X’s care and support plan the Social Worker discussed Mr X’s care needs and support arrangements with the Care Provider and Mrs Y. Some reduction of 2:1 support was not contentious. The Social Worker provided reasons for the change to Mr X’s support and offered gradual decrease. This is a proportionate and acceptable approach.

Back to top

Decision

I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman