Yes, as long as it follows due process and does not act unreasonably. The harsh and perhaps surprising answer is Yes, because in legal terms, after a period of a direct payment being in payment, the council is required to do a review and if it does a proper s27 revision exercise, it can reduce the budget lawfully, without actually deciding, let alone ‘proving’ that ‘the need’ for it no longer exists. That is to say, OTHER grounds for reducing a budget exist and can be lawful.
For instance, a council can reduce a budget because it takes the view that the market rate has gone down, and that care has become cheaper. Or that a smaller package is necessary because the person is being stymied in terms of developing independence by the over-sufficiency of the old budget. Or that a smaller package will still be defensibly adequate because technology it would offer COULD meet the needs in a manner that is not inappropriate in any way, and would be cheaper.
The burden of proof – such as there is one in the public law legal framework, lies on the service user to establish that the new budget is not defensibly adequate for the statutory purpose, and a decision that is not challenged, becomes one that is presumptively lawful and valid. As time goes by, in one sense, and the person finds new ways to cope, without making a fuss about it, they may well be providing the very corroboration needed, for the council’s position.
It’s important to understand that ‘the need’ here in your question does not necessarily mean ‘the need for the service that was paid for’. In strict legal terms, if that’s what you mean, and IF the need for the specific service that was paid for is still in existence, and it is the only way to get the needs met, in professional opinion of the care planning staff, then no reduction can be made.
If something else could do the job, in a tolerable manner, then a reduction can only be made on the footing that another way of meeting that need is not just cheaper but is also not indefensibly inappropriate or unlawful.
If by the need you mean ‘the difficulties created by the person’s condition’ ( – the things they can’t DO / achieve / cope with from the eligibility domains of daily living), well then in that case, if that extent of difficulty has not changed, then it must still BE met, but once again, it can be met with less money, until some indefinable minimally adequate job is no longer able to be done with the sum of money in question. That’s what judicial review is for – defining that line.