Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to review Ms Y’s package of care after she transitioned to Adult Social Care. There was also fault in the Council’s communication with Ms Y’s mother Miss X. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the avoidable uncertainty and frustration caused. It will also take steps to prevent the recurrence of the same fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained on behalf of her daughter Ms Y. Miss X complained about the Council’s:
1. decision to reduce Ms Y’s care package in December 2024 when she turned 18 and transitioned to adult social care services;
2. failure to respond to her requests for a review of Ms Y’s reduced care package following transition; and,
3. failure to respond to her communication.
2. Miss X said as a result of reduced support, Ms Y became socially excluded as she missed out on accessing social activities and her wellbeing and mental health worsened. Miss X said she and Ms Y’s siblings had to provide additional support to meet Ms Y’s needs which impacted the family’s wellbeing and that of Miss X who has health needs.

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 recommend 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. 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.
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

How I considered this complaint

7. I spoke to Miss X about her complaint.
8. I considered evidence provided by the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. 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 guidance

Special educational needs

10. A child or young person with special educational needs (SEN) may have an Education Health and Care (EHC) plan. This sets out their SEN and the arrangements that should be made to meet the needs. An EHC Plan should be reviewed annually and may continue until the young person is aged 25 years. Preparation for adulthood must begin from year 9.

Transition arrangements

11. When a child reaches 18 years, they are legally an adult. Responsibility for meeting their needs moves from the council’s children services to its adult services. The legal basis for assessing their needs changes from the Children Act 1989 to the Care Act 2014.
12. The transition assessment looks at what care and support needs a young person is likely to have after they have turned 18. It should help the young person and their family plan for the future by giving them information about what support they can expect.
13. All transition assessments must include an assessment of:

• current needs for care and support and how these impact on wellbeing
• whether the child or carer is likely to have needs for care and support after the child in question becomes 18
• if so, what those needs are likely to be, and which are likely to be eligible needs
• the outcomes the young person or carer wishes to achieve in day-to-day life and how care and support (and other matters) can contribute to achieving them”. (Chapter 16 of the Care Act 2014 Care and Support Statutory Guidance).

14. If the council is going to meet needs under the Care Act after someone turns 18, it must create a care and support plan. This needs to be done early enough that the package of care and support is in place at the time of transition.

The Care Act Assessment

15. 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. 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.
16. There is no statutory timeframe for completing a needs assessment. 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.

The Care Plan

17. The Care Act 2014 gives councils a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan. 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

18. 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.

The Council’s transition team

19. The Council has a transition team which provides advice, assessment, planning and support and works closely with colleagues across children’s social care services to support transition from childhood to adulthood.

What happened

20. This section sets out the key events of this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
21. Miss X’s daughter Ms Y is a young adult who is disabled and has special educational needs, met through an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Miss X has her own medical needs.
22. Ms Y turned 18 in late 2024 and transitioned from children’s services to adult social care (ASC). Prior to Ms Y’s transition to ASC, Ms Y’s needs were met through a package of care provided by children’s services. Miss X said this package of care included 47 hours per week of support from two care workers to help with personal car, transport and social activities. Ms Y continued at her specialist educational setting where she attended five days a week during term time after transitioning to ASC.
23. Before Ms Y’s transition, the Council completed an NHS Continuing Healthcare Needs Checklist in July 2024. The Council concluded that Ms Y’s needs were not primarily healthcare needs requiring a high level of funded support.
24. In the same month the Council’s panel decided that Ms Y would be provided with 22 hours per week of support, a reduction from the current hours provided by children’s services. The panel also agreed to provide three days per week at a day care service during school holidays for 14 weeks.
25. In November 2024 the children’s services social worker (social worker A) completed a transition assessment for Ms Y.
26. A copy of the transition assessment form stated Ms Y does not have capacity to understand how decisions can affect her life. It recorded Ms Y’s development and care needs, and areas where she needs support including support to communicate, learn, stay safe and to access activities. Sections of the assessment about views from Ms Y’s carers were blank, as was the section about what intervention was needed (and by whom) to help Ms Y.
27. The Council case notes of Ms Y’s transfer from children’s services in November 2024 noted that a care package had been agreed for Ms Y which was 22 hours per week via direct payments, and three days per week at a day service during school holidays for 14 weeks per year.
28. The case notes also showed that in March and May 2025 an NHS professional and social worker A contacted the Council’s ASC team to request a review of the current care package as Miss X was previously told that there would be a review after six weeks. Social worker A said Miss X contacted them weekly about the reduced package of care. The Council’s ASC team said Ms Y’s case was waiting to be allocated to a social worker and it would contact Miss X after the case was allocated.
29. In July 2025 Miss X wrote to the Council complaining that it had:

• reduced Ms Y’s package of care without her agreement and that there was no change in Ms Y’s needs. Miss X said the reduction in support had impacted both her and Ms Y’s wellbeing and medical needs.
• failed to review the reduced package of care when she requested this earlier in the year despite reassurances it would review it as a matter of urgency.
• failed to respond to communication from her.

30. The Council acknowledged Miss X’s complaint and said it would respond by late August 2025.
31. A social worker from the Council’s ASC team (social worker B) sent an email to children’s services soon after which said Ms Y’s case was transferred from children’s services to ASC without all necessary work being completed and without addressing concerns about the reduction in Ms Y’s package of care. It said a complaint about the reduction was raised prior to transition but that was not properly investigated or resolved by children’s services.
32. The Council’s ASC team held a meeting with children’s services. The notes showed that it was agreed that social worker A from children’s services would contact Miss X regarding the reduced care hours.
33. Social worker A contacted Miss X in late July 2025. Notes of this call recorded that:

• Miss X said that ASC had failed to contact her as agreed.
• Social worker A explained that they had previously created another care plan for 39 hours but this was not agreed. They asked Miss X for evidence to show why Ms Y needed more.

34. Ms Y’s new allocated social worker (social worker C) completed a needs assessment in August 2025. The needs assessment recognised that Ms Y required support with a number of Care Act outcomes, including maintaining personal hygiene, being appropriately clothed, managing nutrition, maintaining a habitable home environment, using her home safely, and accessing the community safely.
35. Ms Y’s case for increased care hours was heard by the Council’s panel in September 2025. The Council decided to defer Ms Y’s package of care until it had completed a risk assessment first.
36. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint in late September 2025. The Council:

• apologised to Miss X for its delayed communication.
• said social worker A had requested further details on how the additional hours would be used, but this was not resolved before Ms Y’s transfer to Adult Social Care.
• said Ms Y’s case was presented to the panel earlier in the month – the panel deferred the decision to facilitate a risk assessment first to ensure the right support was in place for Ms Y.

37. The Council completed a risk assessment in March 2026, looking at areas including challenging behaviours, self-harm, aggression, home safety, absconding and transport related risks. This assessment noted that an incident had occurred on Ms Y’s school transport which resulted in the transport service determining it could no longer safely transport Ms Y to school. The Council agreed to increase Ms Y's care package by 10 hours to ensure Ms Y's carer could escort her safely to school, replacing the transport provision previously in place.
38. The Council produced a care and support plan which showed that from March 2026 Ms Y received a total of 32 hours per week of support (22 hours for care and support needs and 10 hours with one carer to support with transport).

The Council’s response to our enquiries

39. We asked the Council for documentary evidence to demonstrate how it arrived at the decision to reduce Ms Y’s package of care to 22 hours when it made that decision in 2024. The Council did not provide this.
40. In response to our enquiries, the Council told us that 22 hours provided via direct payments were to support Ms Y with her personal care in the morning and evenings, and with activities, community engagement and social inclusion. The Council said it had relied on the transition assessment evidence, NHS checklist, the availability and willingness of family support and that Ms Y attended a specialist educational setting five days a week, in reaching the decision to reduce Ms Y’s package of care to 22 hours. The Council said the intention of the Direct Payment package was to provide support outside of Ms Y’s school hours and during periods when Ms Y would otherwise not have access to structured services.
41. The Council said it completed a comprehensive risk assessment in March 2026 to identify any risks that would require an increase in Ms Y’s care and support package. It decided that Ms Y’s needs could be managed through existing support arrangements.

Findings

42. It is not our role to decide what care and support is appropriate to meet a person’s needs. That is the role of the Council. Our role is to look at the processes by which the Council makes its decisions. We cannot criticise the Council’s decision if it made that decision properly and in accordance with the relevant law and guidance.
43. The Council made the decision to reduce Ms Y’s care hours in July 2024 after completing an NHS continuing healthcare checklist and before Ms Y’s social worker completed a transition assessment. The transition assessment document the Council used as evidence in its decision-making process was incomplete and did not evidence any detail of how much support Ms Y needed and why to meet her needs. This was fault.
44. The Council’s ASC team arranged to provide the reduced care package when Ms Y transitioned to ASC in late 2024. Its internal communication said children’s services did not complete Ms Y’s transition properly and/or address the concern about reduced hours before her transfer to ASC. However, the ASC team then had an opportunity to review Ms Y’s care needs within six-eight weeks of her transition, in line with the statutory guidance, to check if Ms Y’s care package at the time was appropriate to meet her needs. There is no evidence to show it did this which was fault.
45. I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, what the Council’s decision would have been if it had reviewed Ms Y’s care and support within six to eight weeks of her transition. Therefore, I cannot say, even on balance, that Ms Y lost out on care as a result of the Council’s fault. But the fault did cause Miss X and Ms Y avoidable uncertainty and frustration.
46. The Council carried out a needs assessment under the Care Act in August 2025 which detailed Ms Y’s eligible care and support needs. The Council decided that a risk assessment was needed. The Council completed a risk assessment which identified that Ms Y needed carer support to take her to and from school due to her previous transport arrangement coming to an end. The Council added an extra 10 hours to Ms Y’s package of care to facilitate this.
47. The Council produced a care and support plan which outlined the details of the support and outcomes agreed to meet Ms Y’s eligible care needs which was 32 hours in total (22 hours for care and support, 10 hours for school transport). There was no fault in the way the Council carried out this assessment and made its decision.
48. There was no evidence to show that ASC responded to communication from Miss X about Ms Y’s package of care upon her transition in a timely manner which was fault that added to her frustration. The Council apologised for the delay in its communication which was an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused from that fault.

Back to top

Actions

49. Within one month of this decision the Council will:
1. Apologise to Miss X and Ms Y for the avoidable frustration and uncertainty caused by its failure to review Ms Y’s package of care in a timely manner and by its poor communication. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making the apology.
2. Pay Miss X £250 to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty caused to Ms Y and Miss X by its failure to review Ms Y’s package of care within the statutory timescales.
50. Within two months of this decision the Council will produce and share an action plan outlining the steps it will take to improve the timeliness of reviews when people transition to adult social care.
51. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

52. I have found fault causing injustice and the Council agreed actions to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman