Summary: Miss X complained the Council wrongly reduced her care hours. We find no fault in the Council’s decision-making. However, we do find fault in the Council’s communication. This caused Miss X avoidable distress, uncertainty and time and trouble. We recommend the Council apologise and makes a payment to Miss X.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council wrongly reduced her care hours.
2. She says this has affected her physical and mental health.

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

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. 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 law and legislation

Assessment

7. 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

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.

Reviews

9. 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

10. In July 2024, the Council reviewed Miss X’s care plan with her and her care agency. During the review, the Council documented that the care agency reported Miss X did not always use her walking escort as intended and often asked carers to complete other tasks. It also confirmed that her family supported her with banking. Based on the information gathered, the Council:
• Reduced her morning call by 30 minutes
• Removed the escort call for banking
• Combined her weekly shopping and cleaning calls into a single 1.5-hour call
• Asked carers to incorporate domestic tasks into existing calls

Miss X asked for her weekly 45-minute walking escort to remain, and the Council initially agreed. However, later in the review process, the Council removed this call, as it no longer funded standalone domestic or community-access calls.

11. In August, the care agency contacted the Council requesting reinstatement of the cleaning call and walking escort, saying there had been a misunderstanding during the review and the walking escort was needed. The Council maintained its revised plan and restated that standalone domestic and community-access calls were no longer commissioned.
12. From early August onwards, Miss X frequently contacted the Council, her care agency, and NHS services, reporting that she was struggling with the reduction in care. She also began to refuse some care visits, which contributed to tasks such as changing her bed sheets not being completed.
13. The Council later adjusted her package again, increasing her morning and evening calls by removing her afternoon call. Miss X continued to express dissatisfaction and requested further reviews.
14. In September, Miss X formally complained to the Council about the reduction in her care package. The Council contacted the care agency who felt the package was now correct but raised concerns about Miss X’s recent behaviour.
15. Throughout September and October, the Council received multiple safeguarding referrals from various agencies concerned about Miss X’s wellbeing and her frequent contact with services. Her GP also raised concerns. The GP social prescriber arranged voluntary walking support and requested an occupational therapy (OT) assessment. The OT assessment found no equipment needs but recommended reinstating a walking escort.
16. Miss X asked for her lunch call to be reinstated. The Council agreed and confirmed with the care agency to revert to three calls a day.
17. In mid-October, the Council issued its stage one complaint response, explaining why the care package had been reduced. It said the review was based on Miss X’s needs, the care agency’s feedback, and walking escorts no longer being a service offered by the Council.
18. In November and December, Miss X repeatedly requested increases to her care package, including additional walking and domestic support. The Council declined, offering voluntary sector alternatives, which Miss X did not accept. Her care agency later withdrew due to concerns about her behaviour, and the Council cancelled the separate domestic call, saying domestic tasks were covered within existing visits.
19. In early 2025, Miss X and her new care agency requested increased support, including a separate cleaning call. The Council agreed only to extend her morning call.
20. Miss X escalated her complaint. The Council said the July review fully considered her needs at the time, and since, further changes to her care package had been made to meet her needs.
21. Miss X continued to chase the Council for further increases but did not receive responses to several contacts made in February and March.
22. Miss X then brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.
23. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it considered both the care agency’s and the OT’s requests to reinstate the walking escort. It accepted that Miss X would benefit from supported walking but explained this would not be provided as part of her support plan because the Council no longer funded standalone community-access calls. Instead, it offered to refer her to voluntary organisations that could provide this support. The Council also said Miss X was offered support through a day centre, which she declined.
24. The Council said it considered the risk of social isolation but felt this was mitigated by the family member Miss X lives with, the frequency of her daily care calls, and the availability of voluntary services and day centre support.

My findings

The July 2024 review and reduction to Miss X’s care package

25. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
26. At Miss X’s annual review, the Council gathered information from Miss X and her care agency, considered how she was using her care calls, and assessed how her needs could be met. It then revised the care plan based on the evidence available. I find no fault in the Council’s decision-making process.
27. The Council initially agreed to retain the walking escort but later withdrew it after its brokerage team advised that standalone walking escorts were no longer offered. Although the Council says it offered Miss X voluntary alternatives, which she refused, the evidence shows it did not promptly inform Miss X of the removal or offer the alternative until four months later, in November.
28. I find no fault in the Council’s decision to remove the walking escort, as it identified an alternative way to meet the need. However, the Council failed to communicate the change promptly, explain the reasons, or offer the alternative in a timely manner. This was fault. This caused Miss X confusion, uncertainty, and contributed to her dissatisfaction.

Communication

29. From August onwards, Miss X frequently contacted the Council for clarification and to request changes to her care package. The evidence shows there were several periods when her calls were not returned, her requests were not acknowledged, and she did not receive updates.
30. Between February and March 2025, Miss X chased a request to increase her care at least three times without receiving any response. There was also ongoing confusion between the Council and the care agency about what support was included in the care package.
31. This amounted to poor communication, which was fault. These failings caused Miss X distress, uncertainty, and the time and trouble of repeatedly pursuing the Council for information, including making a formal complaint.

Back to top

Action

32. To remedy the injustice to Miss X from the faults I have identified, within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Miss X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology; and
• pay Miss X £200 to recognise the distress, uncertainty, and time and trouble caused by its poor communication.
33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

34. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman