Date of decision: 24 December 2025
Summary
An adult with significant care and support needs complained that the Council failed to complete a timely Care Act review, did not properly reassess her needs when her situation changed, and left her without a clear, updated care and support plan for an extended period. The complaint also covered confusion about what help should be provided, who should provide it, and a lack of clear written records or communication, which caused distress, uncertainty and practical difficulties in managing daily life.
What happened
A woman with long‑standing disabilities had a care package from the Council to help her remain at home. In January 2024, she asked the Council to reassess her care plan as her marriage had come to an end, and she was now living alone. She also said she believed her health had deteriorated and needed extra support during the day and at night. Three months later, Ms X wrote to the Council again to follow up with her request.
In October 2024, the Council carried out a review of Ms X’s care needs. The Council undertook some contact and partial review activity, but it did not document a complete Care Act needs assessment capturing the total extent of her needs and the impact on her wellbeing, nor did it share any updated care plan.
Ms X used to receive 4 hours of respite for the care she provided for her former husband; therefore, she no longer required this. But Ms X also told the Council that she was struggling and asked for an increase in her support during the evenings.
The result was that the Council chose to reduce Ms X’s hours of care by 4 hours per week, recording that there had not been any change in Ms X’s needs. The Council increased evening care to 30 minutes and decreased the time allotted to meal preparation.
In response, Ms X raised concerns to which the Council’s response was that they would conduct another review in three months.
Ms X formally complained to the Council in December 2024: she wanted the Council to carry out another review of her care and did not want to wait three months for this. She did not believe the Council had properly considered her care needs, and her health and mobility had deteriorated. She did not think the Council properly took into account her care needs. Her overall need for formal support had increased…
On 16 April 2025, the Council apologised for the delayed response to the complaint, explaining that the social worker had identified support from a family member, and it had provided clear evidence for the reduction in Ms X’s care package.
Ms X was still dissatisfied and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman, who obtained the Council’s records and reviewed the sequence of contacts, assessments and decisions from the earlier period up to the complaint.
Ms X later moved to a different Council location.
What was found
The Ombudsman found the Council failed to comply with its Care Act duty to carry out a timely review. Ms X initially asked the Council to carry out a review of her care needs in January 2024 and chased this up in April 2024. The Council did not carry out the review until October 2024, some nine months later.
Although there is no time frame in the Care Act 2024 for completing review they should be completed as soon as reasonably practicable and in a timely manner proportionate to Ms X’s needs. Whilst this was fault, the Ombudsman did not consider it caused a significant injustice to Ms X, however, because the Council decided to reduce her hours of care. If the Council had carried out the review sooner, it might have decreased Ms X’s hours of care sooner.
Ms X said the Council did not properly assess her needs at the review and wrongly reduced the time per week by 2.5 hours for assistance with meal preparation in order to increase her night-time support. Comments from the review demonstrate that Ms X required care to prepare meals as she could not stand for long periods and needed prompting to eat. There was nothing to indicate that Ms X’s care and support needs regarding meal preparation had changed, and no reasons were given as to why this support had been reduced.
The Council also decided to reduce Ms X’s hours of care by 4 hours per week, as she previously received 4 hours of respite as she cared for her husband. As Ms X and her husband were no longer living together, she did not need these hours of care.
The Ombudsman found fault. Without properly explaining why the Council decided to alter her hours for meal preparation, Ms X could not be certain the Council adequately considered her needs when carrying out the review of her care.
The Council also should have carried out a light-touch review within 6-8 weeks of the October 2024 care review. The Ombudsman did not see any evidence that it did this. This was fault and a missed opportunity to see if the new package of care was working for Ms X.
The Council was additionally at fault for exceeding the amount of time to respond to complaints, taking 90 working days when its policy says it aims to respond to complaints within 60 working days. As a result, Ms X had to wait longer than she should have to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman.
The Council agreed to carry out the following:
- Apologise to Ms X for the injustice caused to her from these faults
- Pay Ms X £200 to recognise the uncertainty she experienced as a result of the Council not justifying why it reduced her hours for meal preparation.
- Consider why there were significant delays in complaint handling in this case. The Council should look at whether there were any steps it could take to improve its response time to complaints, and report back to the Ombudsman with the changes it intends to make.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups and members of the public:
Having said that the Council had asserted that there was ‘clear evidence for the reduction in needs’, the report failed to probe or deal with that position, other than citing the self-evident justification for the removal of the respite hours for the former husband’s own needs.
The Ombudsman’s analysis recognises delays in review and reassessment but overlooks the Care Act distinction between review and revision duties under section 27.
According to the report, Ms X’s original request was actually for the Council to reassess (rather than review) her care needs, as her marriage had broken down and she was living alone. She also believed her health had deteriorated and she needed extra support during the day and at night.
Although it is for a local authority to decide whether a re-assessment is required, they must act reasonably and lawfully in reaching this decision. Given that Ms X was now living alone, and said her health had deteriorated, we would have thought the requirement for a reassessment was unavoidably triggered.
Although Ms X provided care to her husband it is possible that he was providing some care and support to her. Ms X may not have been aware of the distinction between a review and a reassessment but the Council and the Ombudsman should have been aware of this distinction. The Council should have thought about this, and given clear reasons for refusing to reassess, as per the Guidance.
We question the Ombudsman’s decision that there was no significant injustice caused to Ms X by the Council’s failure to review her needs in a timely fashion because if it had done so it might have decided to reduce her hours of care sooner. Yes, she kept 4 hours of support despite the departure of her husband but we do not know what that money was being used for: it might have been funding for hands on care for him which he wasn’t there to receive and therefore if it was a direct payment, it just went back to the council? She had said that the delay had impacted her physical health, emotional health and finances as she sold possessions to pay for care. She was 3.5 hours up, and 2.5 hrs down, with regard to her own needs, after the assessment. So if it had been done sooner, it would have still needed to be put right, but she would not have been out of pocket.
Please use the following link if you want to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s Nottingham City Council (25 002 952) report. If you are affected by the issues in this report, please consider asking a free, one-off question, anonymously, at a level of principle, here. Our experts’ response will give you an opinion which may then help you and the broader community, when posted.
Did you enjoy this analysis? Want to stay informed with our weekly Alert Service? Then do click here to find out how you can receive the latest insights from experts and commentators and stay updated on key judicial decisions, ombudsmen’s reports, and critical law and policy changes, all for just £30per YEAR and sent straight to your inbox or WhatsApp!