Summary: We find fault by the Council in the way it has managed Mr X’s disabled brother’s (Mr Y’s) care plan. This has caused avoidable distress to Mr X and a loss of opportunity for Mr Y. The Council has agreed the remedy for the injustice caused. We have therefore completed our investigation and are closing the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X is making a complaint on behalf of his brother (Mr Y) who is severely disabled and non-verbal. We consider Mr X is a suitable representative for his brother.
2. Mr X complained that, in July 2024, the Council wrongly removed some of Mr Y’s care support at the weekends, and it failed to carry out a prompt care review as agreed by the Council in May 2025. Such a review had been recommended at stage three of the Council’s statutory complaint investigation and accepted by the Council.
3. Mr X also complained that the Council failed to provide key documents and there was a delay in dealing with his complaints.
4. Mr X says that he and his family have been caused avoidable distress and time and trouble by the Council’s faults. It has been a huge strain caring for Mr Y who has extensive care needs. Mr X says that it is not safe for other members of his family to provide care to Mr Y. So, the responsibility rests on him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these.
6. 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)
7. We may investigate complaints from the person affected by the complaint issues, or from someone else if they have given their consent. If the person affected cannot give their consent, we may investigate a complaint from a person we decide is a suitable representative. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A or 34C).
8. Where there has been a statutory independent investigation under the Children Act 1989, unless we identify fault in how the council carried out the stage two or three investigation, we will not reinvestigate the substantive matters, and will consider the resulting injustice and remedy, if one has not been provided.
9. 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

10. In May 2025, the Council completed a comprehensive statutory investigation into Mr X’s complaint under the Children Act 1989 statutory process. At stage three, there were several recommendations made which Mr X says had not been completed.
11. I am only investigating the Council’s actions in relation to the non-adherence to some of the key recommendations made in the statutory investigation. So, my investigation covers the period of June 2025 to March 2026 when the Council completed a Care and Support Review Plan.
12. Part of the Council’s statutory investigation also included complaints about Mr Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. I am not investigating these because we have dealt with two complaints about the EHC Plan (our references: 24 021 318 and 25 004 662).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

13. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and by the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. I issued a draft decision statement to the Council and to Mr X and I issued an amended draft decision to take into account Mr X and the Council’s additional points, and to amend the recommended actions.
14. I have considered Mr X and the Council’s further comments when reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and policy

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. 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.
16. 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. 

Statutory children’s complaints

17. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail. We also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
18. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 10 working days to respond. But councils can ask for an extension to 20 days, but they should tell the complainant.
19. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigating officer (IO) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
20. The whole stage two process should be completed within 25 working days, but guidance allows an extension for up to 65 working days where required.
21. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel. The council must hold the panel within 30 working days of the date of request and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.

Back to top

What happened

22. This is a summary of events outlining key facts and it does not include everything that has happened in this case.
23. Mr Y is a young adult who has significant care needs and is non-verbal. He has autism with motor and sensory difficulties. He can be a danger to himself and to others.
24. Mr Y lives at home with his family supported by a care package and by an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Mr X says that he had to return to live with his family to help care for Mr Y, otherwise there was a possibility his brother would have to be placed in a care home. Mr X has had the fulltime ongoing responsibility for Mr Y, and this has placed a significant strain on him and his family.
25. Mr Y was supported in the community by a jointly funded health and social care package from Children’s Services Disability Team. This package initially consisted of a total care package of 81 hours per week, which included three nights of care and care on a Sunday.
26. In May 2024, there was a review of Mr Y’s care package. Mr X explained to the social worker that he needed to return to work fulltime and therefore the family were requesting more care hours. Mr X is concerned that there is no note of this review.
27. At this review, the Council stated it was looking at a day centre for Mr Y. But the day centre subsequently said it could not meet Mr Y’s needs. Mr X considers the Council should have approached other day centres outside the borough.
28. In early July 2024, the social worker again visited Mr X. There is no note of this visit. The social worker supported an increase in the care hours to 111 hours per week because of Mr X’s intention to return to work fulltime.
29. In July 2024, the Council’s 18 Plus Panel considered Mr Y’s care package. The 18 Plus Panel serves as a case evaluation panel within the 0-25 Transition Team within the Children and Family Services. The Council says that the 18 Plus Panel is required to provide the meeting minutes.
30. The social worker was present. It was noted that Mr X wanted to work fulltime and that Mr Y had extensive needs and required fulltime support to keep him and others safe. The 18 Plus Panel decided that the care package should be increased. It was also noted that various day centres and colleges were unable to care for Y.
31. However, the Sunday care hours were reduced from 10 hours of 1:1 support and 3 hours of 2:1 support to 3 hours of 2:1 support. There was also a reduction in the weekly 2:1 support. Mr X was concerned about this. There was no decision letter sent to Mr X explaining the 18 Plus Panel’s decision.
32. Mr X formally complained about the reduction in the Sunday hours and the hours for Mr Y to access the community. Mr X says that this reduction was ‘just sprung on him’ and he was given no rationale for the decision.
33. Although the Council has an appeal system to challenge care decisions, Mr X says that this has only been introduced because of his complaint.

The statutory investigation of Mr X’s complaints

34. The stage two report was detailed and covered all aspects of Mr X’s complaints. It was completed in January 2025 and upheld most of the complaints. Broadly, these were as follows:

• delay in the complaint process;
• that there had been a reduction in the care package but the 18 Plus Panel should have sent a decision letter explaining its decision;
• that it was perverse that the minutes of the 18 Plus Panel were not provided to Mr X;
• that the 18 Plus Panel should have been adjourned to await the outcome of the review of Mr Y’s EHC Plan;
• that the Council knew Mr X was returning to work, but there was no consideration of making an interim decision outside the 18 Plus Panel; and
• the Council could have made more effort to find a day centre.

35. The key recommendations were that Mr Y’s case should be re-represented to the 18 Plus Panel with an updated risk assessment; social workers should make notes of home visits to put on the files; 18 Plus Panel should provide letters with a clear rationale for its decisions and details of how to appeal and the Council should operate in a transparent way.
36. The Council apologised to Mr X for the upheld complaints.
37. In April 2025, a stage three Complaints Review Panel considered the complaints and agreed with the stage two investigation decision and recommendations.
38. In May 2025, the Council wrote to Mr X accepting the Complaints Review Panel’s recommendations.
39. In August 2025, Mr X complained to the Ombudsman because the Council had not implemented the recommended actions. He also complained that the current provision of 3 hours of 2:1 support on a Sunday was inadequate and said that Mr Y required at least 6 hours of this support so that he could access the community. Mr X said he wanted to be reimbursed the loss of the 10 hours support since July 2024, at a cost of £20 per hour, on the basis that this support was removed without proper consideration or rationale.
40. In November 2025, Mr Y’s case was transferred from the Children Services Disability Team to the Adult Social Care Learning Disability Team. There is also an ongoing continuing health care assessment to see whether Mr Y is eligible for full health funding.
41. In March 2026, the Council completed a Care and Support Plan Review (the Plan). This was sent to Mr X who has forwarded it to me, along with copy emails between him and the social worker. A new care plan was due to start in mid-March 2026.
42. Mr X says that, since July 2024, the Council has not increased the care hours. It rearranged the existing hours while reducing the 1:1 support during times. It was a reallocation of hours rather than an increase in the hours.
43. The Council says that it is working closely with Mr X and his family. The Council is now considering whether a residential placement would be better for Mr Y. Mr X has explained that he and his family disagree with this proposal.

The Council’s May 2025 final main recommendations:

the Council, along with other statutory agencies, should as soon as possible undertake a comprehensive risk assessment and the Council should review the support plan with an emphasis on Positive Behaviour Support, risk assessments and any training needs

44. In May 2025, the Council said the above review was due in mid-June 2025. The Council says a referral was made to a local psychology team to help with the review and risk assessment. The Council says that the family had not engaged with the psychology team although their input was necessary to assess Mr Y’s behavioural challenges. The Council says that it had not been able to complete this review by mid-June 2025 because of the family’s lack of engagement. But it sent a summary report to Mr X in June 2025.
45. Mr X says that the family have engaged with the psychology team, and this has proved helpful. At no point did the Council contact him about any failure to engage and he does not accept the family has been the cause of the delay in carrying out the review.
46. The Care and Support Plan (the Plan), dated March 2026, was devised in consultation with Mr X, the current care agency providing the care hours to Mr Y, and the psychology team. It is a detailed account of Mr Y’s risks, behaviours and needs as well as an account of the difficulties for Mr X now that he is working fulltime.
47. The Plan recognises that Mr X has very little free time. Once home from work, he provides care for Mr Y. Mr X cannot have a social life. The Plan provides for 81 hours support per week, and not the 110 hours which Mr X says he had previously. He also remains very concerned that the previous 2:1 support on Sundays has not been reinstated, and the community support is too little, especially as Mr Y enjoys being outside.
48. The Plan notes that the Council has tried to find a day centre for Mr Y, but his risks are too high. The Council considers that Mr Y’s needs are health related and hence it has made a referral for a continuing health care assessment. Mr X says that the Council has still not approached any day centres outside the borough and only a few in borough.
49. The social worker, completing the assessment, has recommended the care package is increased because Mr X is working fulltime. Mr X says that the Council is not presenting the facts correctly. It conflates the pre-July 2024 care plan with the new one and presents it as if the care hours have been increased, when it has not. Mr X says that the crux of his complaints is that the Council has not accurately recorded the package in place, not responded to his withdrawal of care and not put in place an interim support plan which meets Mr Y’s care needs.
50. Mr X says that he is asking for 6 hours of 2:1 support daily, an additional 10 hours of care 8am to 10pm and full weekend cover.
51. The Council says, once it has the health assessment, it will review the situation.

the Council agreed that Mr X’s request for a restitution regarding the reduced weekend support was reasonable (July 2024 to March 2025) and this should be reviewed and the Council accepted that the family needed support

52. At the Complaints Review Panel, the Council said that the 18 Plus Panel should be scheduled as soon as possible. But the Council stated that it required the psychology and health assessments, which it was waiting for, but were required so the 18 Plus Panel could make an informed decision.
53. The Council says that this ‘review’ by 18 Plus Panel has not happened because of the lack of updated incident reports from the care agency, a lack of engagement from the psychology team and the cessation of Mr Y’s EHC Plan.
54. The Council says that it recognises the need to keep Mr Y safe at home and in the community to avoid the need for residential care. This is why it made a referral in February 2026 for continuing health care, and it continues to look for a possible day centre.
55. The Council says the interim plan will be reviewed in mid-May 2026. Mr X says this still has not happened. That means the Council has taken nearly two years to undertake the review and it still has not been completed and a new care package arranged.
56. However, matters after March 2026 are not part of my current investigation.

delay in complaint process

57. Mr X made his complaint at the end of July 2024. It took ten months to complete the process. However, the only delay identified by the stage two investigator was in respect of the stage one response in that the Council did not tell Mr X that it would take 20 working days to respond.
58. The Council does not accept there were delays in the process. The stage one response was on time (20 days); the stage two investigation took just over two months, so within the timescale of sixty-five days. Mr X provided his reasons for requesting a Complaints Review Panel hearing in mid-March 2025 and the hearing was at the end of April 2025, so within the thirty days. The Council’s final response was on time.

Findings

59. Given the very comprehensive stage two investigation report, there is no need to revisit the findings. The statutory investigation found many faults (set out in paragraph 33) concerning the management of Mr Y’s care package, and I endorse those findings of fault.
60. I also consider the failure to provide a decision letter, after the 18 Plus Panel meeting of July 2024, has meant that Mr X cannot understand the rationale for the reduction in the 2:1 Sunday support, particularly when the social worker was recommending an increase in hours. Since making his complaint, Mr X remains none the wiser about the rationale for the 18 Plus Panel’s decision of July 2024.
61. In respect of the complaint handling, it is good that the Council rightly put this complaint through the statutory process which has allowed an independent overview. I do not find fault with the timescale of the complaint process.
62. However, the Council has delayed in implementing the recommended action to review the care package. While I recognise that the Council required information from health professionals to complete a well-informed review assessment of Mr Y’s needs and Mr X’s caring responsibilities, the Council could have returned the matter to the 18 Plus Panel for an ‘interim’ decision. As Mr X says, once he was unable to provide the same level of care, the Council had a duty to review and revise the care package and issue a new interim support plan.
63. I find the delay in reviewing the case and having an interim plan amounts to fault and this has compounded the faults identified in the earlier statutory investigation. This additional fault would also have compounded the injustice to Mr Y, Mr X and his family and has required Mr X to complain to the Ombudsman to ensure the Council carried out the action it had agreed to.
64. However, the Ombudsman cannot determine what is an appropriate care package for Mr Y and his family. These are decisions for the Council. There is continued communication between Mr X, his family and the Adult Social Care Learning Disability Team about this. I recognise that Mr Y’s care needs are high and this adds complexity to the situation for both Mr X and the Council.

Back to top

Action

65. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the council had not occurred. When this is not possible, we may recommend the council makes a symbolic payment. Where that takes the form of a payment, it is often a modest amount whose value is intended to be largely symbolic rather than purely financial. We also support organisational learning and improvements to help others.
66. We expect senior officers from councils to make effective, timely and specific apologies for the faults we have identified.
67. Within one month of the final statement, the Council’s Children Services will:
1. apologises to Mr X for the faults and injustice which I have identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings;
2. the Council’s Children Services will provide Mr X with a copy of the minutes of the 18 Plus Panel meeting of July 2024, even if there have to be redactions; and
3. there is now a Care and Support Plan, dated March 2026. But there was a delay in reaching this stage causing avoidable distress to Mr X and his family. Children Services will make a symbolic payment of £1,000 to Mr X for the avoidable distress caused by this fault.

Service improvements

68. This complaint has highlighted that the Council should carry out service improvements, if it has not already done so. Within one month of the final statement, the Council’s Children Services will:

• ensure that the 18 Plus Panel sends service users written decisions, explaining the rationale behind its decisions. These decision letters should be sent within two weeks of a hearing, and residents should be told how they can challenge these decisions.

69. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

70. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed the recommended actions to remedy this injustice and therefore I am closing the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman