Summary: Ms X complained the Council reduced her care package without her involvement following a review of her care and support needs. She says the reduced level of care did not meet her needs and caused her distress. We found no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council reduced her care package following a review of her care and support needs without her input. She says the reduced package has not met her needs and caused her distress. She would like the Council to restore her care package to its previous level.

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 how the organisation made its decision, 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Ms X and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Assessment

6. 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.
7. Councils must carry out assessments over a suitable and reasonable timescale considering the urgency of needs and any variation in those needs. Councils should tell people when their assessment will take place and keep them informed throughout the assessment.

Care Plan

8. 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.

What happened

9. Ms X has eligible care and support needs. Until August 2025, she had been receiving four daily care calls, and an additional two hours per week for cleaning and shopping assistance.
10. At the end of July, the Council allocated a Social Care Practitioner (Practitioner A) to review Ms X’s case.
11. At the beginning of August, Practitioner A visited Ms X and carried out a Care Act assessment at her home. The assessment was completed with Ms X, her friend, and her home support provider in attendance. Ms X advised Practitioner A that she had leg surgery scheduled for the end of the month so did not want any reduction in the care package. Practitioner A advised Ms X that until the surgery had taken place, it would not be possible to determine the exact help Ms X would need. However, adjustments to the care package could be made if necessary and would be reviewed on an ongoing basis.
12. Practitioner A issued the amended care plan the next day. The care package had been reduced to two daily calls, consisting of a 15-minute call in the morning and a 30-minute call in the evening. The package included an increase to the cleaning and shopping assistance, which was now two and a half hours per week. The Council explained it had amended the plan based on its observations of Ms X’s abilities during the assessment and her expressed wish to become more independent.
13. Ms X contacted Practitioner A the following day by telephone. She said she was concerned about the reduction in support. Practitioner A said Ms X had agreed the care package on the previous day.
14. A senior staff member (Officer B) then spoke to Ms X later that day to discuss her concerns about the reduced care package. Ms X requested a new assessor. Officer B refused this request, and said they had reviewed the assessment, and could see that Practitioner A had followed the correct process in completing the assessment. Ms X said she was worried she would need more help following her surgery. Officer B explained that Practitioner A would work with her before hospital admission, during the admission, and take part in the discharge planning process. Officer B said Practitioner A would consider increasing care if this was needed. During the call, Ms X asked if she really needed to have the evening call. Officer B confirmed they considered it necessary.
15. The following week, a caseworker from a charity called Practitioner A and explained Ms X remained distressed about the reduction in her care package. Practitioner A explained the reduction had been designed to empower Ms X. They said she could manage lots of things for herself but preferred the carers to do them for her.
16. A few days later, Ms X contacted Practitioner A again and told her she remained concerned about the reduction in care. Practitioner A reiterated they would consider any adjustments required to the care package around the time of her surgery.
17. Ms X became unwell, so her surgery was postponed and did not take place at the end of August. The hospital phoned the Council and said following conversations with Ms X, it felt she would benefit from an increase in her care visits.
18. A few days later, at the beginning of September, Practitioner A visited Ms X at her home and carried out another review of her care and support plan. Practitioner A asked Ms X what she felt she needed extra help with. Ms X explained she would like more assistance with washing herself.
19. The Council’s assessment notes show it observed that Ms X was able to move around the house unaided. However, it added extra time to the care visits to help her wash, increasing these to 45 minutes three times per week. It stated Ms X remained able to manage the preparation of her own meals and drinks. The Council put in place this change the following day.
20. Ms X submitted a formal complaint to the Council in mid-September. She said the Council had wrongly decreased her care package when she felt she needed an increase to her care visits.
21. The Council issued its response in mid-October. It said it had reduced the care package after observing Ms X’s abilities during the assessment and because Ms X had said she wanted to become more independent. It said at the end of the assessment, Ms X, Practitioner A, and the home care provider had agreed on the reduction in the care package.
22. Ms X approached the Ombudsman in October.
23. Ms X became unwell in November, so the Council has since increased the care package.

Back to top

Analysis

24. Practitioner A visited Ms X’s home to complete the Care Act assessment. The decision to reduce the care package was made with agreement from Ms X, Practitioner A, and a senior staff member of the home care provider. The Council’s case notes and Care Assessment state that Ms X had expressed her wish to become more independent. Practitioner A also observed Ms X’s mobility around her home. It said while Ms X still suffered some pain, she could now manage more of her own needs and so required less carer support that she had been receiving. Ms X also told Practitioner A she was able to access washing facilities upstairs and was able to use the bathroom to clean independently. However, it identified she needed more help with cleaning her home so arranged a longer care visit twice per week to facilitate this.
25. I am satisfied the Council involved Ms X in its decision to reduce her care package. The Council’s notes are detailed and show it considered her views and needs. Ms X confirmed to me when I spoke to her on the phone that she had participated in the assessment. Ms X later questioned the Council about the need for the evening visit, and the Council said it considered she did need this assistance. This demonstrates that the Council was conscious of her needs.
26. I understand Ms X strongly disagrees, but the Council’s decision to reduce her care package was a matter of professional judgement and was considered in line with her needs and views at the time. I do not find fault in the Council’s decision-making process to reduce Ms X’s care package.
27. Following the assessment, Ms X raised concerns with the Council about the reduction, and the Council explained its reasoning and committed to reviewing the package as needed. The Council subsequently increased Ms X’s care package in September to include further assistance with washing when Ms X and the hospital identified she needed more help with this. It increased the care again later in the year when she became unwell. I am satisfied the Council considered Ms X’s needs on an ongoing basis and that its decision to amend her care package in August was informed by her needs at the time. I do not find the Council at fault.

Back to top

Decision

28. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman