Summary: Miss X complained the Council reduced her adult daughter's care package, failed to provide sufficient funding for her preferred day service, transport and respite, and provided incorrect information about the registration status of the preferred provider. We have not revisited the Council's 2023 funding decision, as this was previously considered and no materially new evidence has been identified. The Council accepted and apologised for the incorrect information it provided about the provider's registration status, and no further fault is found in its actions.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained on behalf of her adult daughter, Ms Y. She said the Council reduced Ms Y's adult social care budget, failed to provide sufficient funding for her preferred day service, removed transport funding, failed to properly consider respite provision and the impact on family carers, and wrongly advised that the preferred provider, was not registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
2. Miss X said these matters placed Ms Y's wellbeing and safety at risk and caused the family distress and financial strain because they had continued to privately fund care, transport and respite.

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. 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

5. I have investigated the Council's actions from October 2024 onwards, including its handling of Miss X's complaint, the information it provided regarding the provider and its consideration of transport, respite and reassessment following Miss X's complaint.
6. I have not revisited the Council's 2023 reassessment of Ms Y's care package, the reduction in her personal budget or the decision not to fully fund her preferred day service. Those matters were previously considered by the Ombudsman. It was decided there was insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Having reviewed the further evidence provided in this complaint, I see no reason to depart from that earlier assessment.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Relevant legislation and guidance

Assessment

9. 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.

Carer’s Budgets and Respite

10. The Care Act 2014 says the council may meet the carer’s needs by providing a service directly to the adult needing care. The carer must still receive a support plan which covers their needs, and how the council will meet them. The carer’s personal budget must be an amount that enables the carer to meet their needs to continue to fulfil their caring role. It must also consider what the carer wishes to achieve in their day-to-day life. Part of the planning process should be to agree how the carer will use the personal budget to meet their needs. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014)

Reviews

11. 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

12. The Council reviewed Ms Y's care and support package in 2023 following its decision to cease contracting with the provider. Following the reassessment, it reduced Ms Y's personal budget and concluded an alternative day service could meet her eligible Care Act needs. The Council agreed to provide the revised personal budget as a direct payment, allowing the family to continue using the provider if they wished.
13. Following enquiries from Miss X's Member of Parliament in October 2024, the Council maintained its position that the alternative day service could meet Ms Y's assessed needs, that transport funding would not be provided in accordance with its transport policy, and that the direct payment remained appropriate.
14. The Ombudsman considered a previous complaint about the reduction in Ms Y's care package and funding for her preferred day service in January 2025. The Ombudsman decided there was insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
15. Miss X submitted a further complaint to the Council in July 2025. She said Ms Y's needs had increased, transport funding had been wrongly removed, respite had not been properly considered, and the Council had incorrectly stated the provider was not registered with CQC.
16. The Council's stage one response maintained its position regarding Ms Y's support package but confirmed the case would be prioritised for reassessment. It also referred to the earlier Ombudsman complaint.
17. The Council accepted it had wrongly advised the provider was not registered with CQC and apologised after Miss X escalated the matter. It said this issue, together with transport, respite and carers' support, would be considered during a reassessment.
18. A social worker was allocated and arranged a reassessment meeting. However, before the review took place, Miss X asked the Council to postpone it because she had complained to the Ombudsman. The Council subsequently paused the reassessment.
19. The Council confirmed during this investigation that no reassessment had taken place because of Miss X's request. It also confirmed there had been no change to Ms Y's support package or funding since the 2023 reassessment.

Analysis and findings

Reduction in Ms Y's care package and funding

20. Miss X disagreed with the Council's decision to reduce Ms Y's personal budget and not fully fund her preferred day service.
21. These issues were previously considered by the Ombudsman. It was decided there was insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation into the Council's reassessment and funding decision. The further information provided during this investigation does not materially alter that position or provide grounds to revisit the earlier assessment. Accordingly, the merits of the Council's 2023 reassessment and funding decision have not been reconsidered.

Information regarding the provider

22. The Council accepted it incorrectly advised Miss X that the provider was not registered with the CQC and apologised during its complaint process.
23. The Council explained that its decision not to commission the provider directly was based on commissioning arrangements and its assessment that Ms Y's eligible Care Act needs could be met through an alternative provider. It also explained that the direct payment enabled Miss X to continue using the provider should she wish to do so.
24. The evidence does not establish that the incorrect information regarding the provider’s registration status materially affected the Council's funding decision or resulted in a different outcome for Ms Y.
25. The Council was at fault for providing inaccurate information regarding the provider’s registration status. But it acknowledged the error and apologised during the complaint process, and the available evidence does not establish that this fault affected the substantive decisions regarding Ms Y's care or support. No further remedy is warranted as there is limited injustice.

Transport

26. Miss X says the Council failed to properly consider Ms Y's transport needs.
27. The Council's complaint responses and enquiries explained that transport was considered as part of the 2023 reassessment and that the decision reflected Ms Y's receipt of the enhanced mobility component of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) together with the Council's assessment of her eligible needs. The Council also explained that, following changes to its transport policy arising from a separate Ombudsman complaint, Ms Y would have been considered under the revised policy had the reassessment proceeded.
28. No reassessment took place because Miss X asked the Council to postpone it pending this investigation.
29. The evidence does not indicate fault in the Council's actions during the period investigated. Whilst the Council has not produced a fresh transport assessment from 2025, this is because the planned reassessment did not proceed.
30. There is no fault on this point. There is insufficient evidence to conclude the Council failed to properly consider transport during the period investigated.

Respite and carers' support

31. Miss X says the Council failed to properly consider the family's need for respite.
32. The Council explained that the existing care package included four days of day opportunities each week together with PA hours which could be used flexibly. It also confirmed Miss X was referred to a carers support network following the 2023 reassessment, a preventative carers assessment was completed in June 2024, and a full carers assessment was declined. The Council intended to reconsider respite and carers' needs during the postponed reassessment offered in October 2025.
33. Whilst Miss X disagrees that the existing arrangements provide sufficient respite, the available evidence does not establish that the Council failed to consider carers' needs during the period investigated.
34. The available evidence does not establish fault in the Council's consideration of respite or carers' support during the period investigated.

Reassessment

35. The Council accepted a reassessment should take place following Miss X’s complaint. It allocated a social worker and arranged to complete the review.
36. The available evidence shows the reassessment did not proceed because Miss X requested it be postponed rather than because of delay by the Council. There is no fault on this point.

Overall finding

37. The substantive issues raised by Miss X concerning the adequacy of Ms Y's care package and funding have previously been considered by the Ombudsman and have not been revisited.
38. The Council was at fault for incorrectly advising that the provider was not registered with the CQC. However, it accepted that error and apologised during its complaint process. The available evidence does not establish that the error affected the Council's substantive decision-making or caused the financial losses claimed by Miss X.
39. No further fault is found in the Council's actions during the period investigated. But we recommend the Council completes the reassessment and reconsiders the issues raised by Miss X.

Back to top

Decision

40. I find fault not causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman