Care Plans and Cuts

A popular problem in the category is when a Council may reduce a person’s care package without review. The LGO always states that this is fault from the council. It results in unmet needs, which causes injustice to the person. Before anything in your care plan is changed, you must have an assessment or review.

Care being delivered not in line with someone’s care plan is always fault. It is a breach of statutory duty if a council does not deliver what is set out in a care plan. A care plan cannot be changed unless or until a lawful reassessment (and now a revision process under s27) has been carried out. A revision proposal cannot take effect unless or until the new plan is signed off. The plan must derive rationally and coherently from the assessment

Again, the LGO will highlight that it is the process followed during/after the assessment which will find the Council at fault, rather than the outcome necessarily. Poor communication between Councils and families will often lead to confusion and delay, resulting in needs being unmet, insufficient support, or financial burdens. Issues also arise when the person is not sufficiently involved in the assessment process. The LGO will usually recommend a subsequent assessment take place to clear up any ambiguities or shortcomings. Clarity is key.

Name of Council	Subject Matter	Title of Report	Number
Sheffield	Assessments, Care Plans, Direct Payment,	Sheffield City Council at fault for multiple errors in a care assessment and incorrectly commissioning care with a provider previously complained about	19 019 521
Bradford	Care Plans and Cuts	Bradford Council not at fault for reducing a care package	20 001 351
Hertfordshire	Choice and top ups, Communication	Hertfordshire County Council at fault for its poor communication surrounding third-party top-up arrangements	19 011 176
Haringey	Arbitrariness	Haringey Council at fault for avoidable delays in assessing needs for an elderly woman waiting to be discharged from hospital	17 016 601
Staffordshire	Arbitrariness	Staffordshire County Council at fault for delay in reassessment and not meeting an assessed eligible need	19 011 306
Wiltshere	Arbitrariness, Use of non-compliant tool	Wiltshire County Council at fault for using the Matrix Assessment Tool to reduce the of level respite care and transport provisions	16 015 946
Hammersmith and Fulham	Arbitrariness, Care not in line with plan, Delay, Communication	London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham found at fault for delays in completing a sensory assessment and in implementing reablement support	18 019 465
Kirklees	Arbitrariness, inadequate plan	Kirklees Council at fault for removing respite care and setting arbitrary limit to funding	19 008 980
Staffordshire	Care not in line with plan	Staffordshire County Council at fault for stopping respite care funding, and not sufficiently involving the person and their family in assessments and reviews	19 003 615
Gloucestershire	Care not in line with plan	Gloucestershire County Council at fault for discontinuing an autistic man’s support and for the delays in reassessing him	19 005 899
Surrey	Care not in line with plan	Cherrytrees Care Provider, Surrey County Council and CCG at fault for failing to provide care in line with a young man’s s.117 aftercare plan	18 007 431
Calderdale	Arbitrariness, delays	Calderdale Council at fault for poor communication, failing to involve a person in decisions surrounding their care, wrongly stopping direct payments and severe delays in carrying out an assessment	19 004 821
Creative Support LTD	Care not in line with plan	Creative Support Limited care provider found at fault for poor quality of care	18 016 768
Cheshire West and Chester	Care not in line with plan	Cheshire West and Chester Council found not at fault for recovering direct payments, but found at fault in delivering care not in line with the care plan	18 005 390
Cornwall	Care not in line with plan	Cornwall County Council at fault for forcing a carer to carry on meeting needs by stopping direct payments and leaving any alternative source of care undelivered	19 004 581
Wandsworth	Care not in line with plan	London Borough of Wandsworth at fault in charging for care outside of care plan, and delay in invoicing estate	18 018 409
Warwickshire	Care not in line with plan	Warwickshire County Council at fault for the quality of care it commissioned	18 014 148
Bradford City	Care not in line with plan, Delay	City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council to pay £60,000 in restitution for failing to provide care or support for over 5 years, despite agreeing a support plan	17 016 346
Kent County	Care not in line with plan, Delay	Kent County Council at fault for failing to update care plan and provide the support outlined in care plan	19 000 949
Stockport Metropolitan	Care not in line with plan	Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council at fault for providing care contrary to contents of current care plan	18 010 209
Milton Keynes	Care not in line with plan, inadequate Plan	Milton Keynes Council at fault for needs assessment flawed by a ‘last resort’ policy, for leaving a paid personal assistant working without pay – and for providing a care package clearly insufficient to meet needs	18 003 035
Norfolk County	Care not in line with plan	Norfolk County Council found at fault for failing to meet assessed eligible needs with a care plan that allowed for a refusal of a carer (both paid and unpaid) to do any more – and now making restitution for that wrongdoing	19 002 258
Sheffield City	Care not in line with plan	Sheffield City Council at fault for failing to meet night time needs	18 018 362
Kirklees	Care not in line with plan	Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council at fault for withdrawing vital services and failing to recognise its responsibility to respond to a subsequent crisis.	19 009 200
Reading	care not in line with plan, communication, inadequate plans	Reading Borough Council at fault for causing care plan confusion as it failed to record changes to care plan, to meet needs over seven days as assessed, and changed its mind on its own findings on the complaint made	19 005 250
Bury	Choice and top ups	Bury MBC at fault in relation to information provided about the costs of a care home	18 002 874
Calderdale	Choice and top ups	Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council at fault for arbitrary top up policies, for instructing service users to enter into top up agreement contracts with care homes directly, for failing to identify a suitable care home and for failing to undertake a needs assessment	19 009 079
Leicestershire	Choice and top ups	Leicestershire Council at fault for failing to arrange home care within a reasonable timescale, and failing to provide information about direct payments	18 017 173
Lincolnshire	Choice and top ups	Lincolnshire County Council at fault for the way it pursued outstanding care payments	19 001 789
Sheffield	Choice and top ups	Sheffield City Council at fault for wrongly charging top-up fees and having an arbitrary ceiling to personal budgets	19 009 239
London Borough of Bromley	Communication, Inadequate Plan	London Borough of Bromley at fault for failing properly to consider a request for extra support	18 016 782
London Borough of Bromley	Arbitrary Limit on Personal Budget	London Borough of Bromley at fault for setting an arbitrary limit on a personal budget and failing to show how assessed needs could be met within the final sum offered	19 007 855
Essex County and Hertfordshire County	Communication	Essex County Council and Hertfordshire County Council at fault for failing to follow proper decision making processes when returning a person home from residential care	18 018 838 18 016 276
Kent County	Communication	Kent County Council at fault for lack of clarity in its Panel procedure	18 017 980
Lancashire County	Communication	Lancashire County Council found at fault over its assessment process, provision of information, recovery of direct payments and refusing to accept the necessity for a close relative to be paid to provide support	18 012 204
Norfolk County	Communication, Inadequate Plan	Norfolk Council at fault for reducing personal budget without properly involving the recipient or complying with the Care Act	18 012 892
Kensington & Chelsea	Communication, Inadequate Plan	Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea at fault due to poor communication, delay in assessments and delay in care and support.	19 008 936
Bradford Metropolitan District	Communication, Delay	City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council at fault for serious delays in decision-making and failing to communicate properly	19 000 350
Waltham Forest	Communication, Delay	Waltham Forest Council found at fault by ombudsman after delaying a Carer’s Assessment for two years from the date requested and even then failing to provide the outcome of the assessment to the carer	18 004 436
Havering	Delay, Inadequate Plan, Arbitrariness	London Borough of Havering Council fails to ensure a sufficient personal budget to cover care and support needs, and offers an arbitrary ‘standard’ amount	18 018 467
Nottignhamshire County	Delay	Nottinghamshire at fault, for reducing a man’s care package because of financial pressures and leaving parents to pay	18 015 558
Warwickshire	Delay	Warwickshire Council at fault regarding mental capacity assessments and failure to provide an advocate	18 017 301
Haringey	Inadequate Commissioning	London Borough of Haringey at fault for poor communication surrounding placement options and severe delay in authorising a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards application	19 003 309
Lincolnshire	Inadequate Commissioning, Communication	Lincolnshire County Council, Lincolnshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and Lincolnshire East CCG found jointly at fault for failing to work together properly with regard to s117 aftercare	18 012 682
Bath and North East Somerset	Inadequate Plan	Bath and North Somerset Council at fault for failing to address the shortfall in a personal budget	19 000 003
Suffolk	Inadequate Plan	Suffolk County Council at fault for carrying out flawed assessments and care plans and preventing a chosen representative from providing support during reviews	17 018 391
Leeds City	Inadequate Plan	Leeds Council at fault for its approach to cultural norms and quality of care provided through its commissioning	18 016 024
Leicester City	Inadequate Plan	Leicester Council at fault for prematurely reducing support hours resulting in unmet eligible needs	18 016 053
Hillingdon	Inadequate Plan	Hillingdon Council at fault for failing to produce any care and support plan, for delays in payments and for failing to provide any adequate interim arrangements	17 016 412
Worcestershire	Inadequate Plan	Worcestershire Council at fault for delay in providing care and accommodation, for failure to assess capacity to make decisions, for failure regarding consideration of the need for advocacy, and failure to assess a carer	18 007 624
Redbridge	Inadequate Plan	London Borough of Redbridge Council at fault for incorrectly charging a carer the full amount of his support costs, after wrongly requesting financial assessment	18 015 695
Islington	Inadequate Plan	London Borough of Islington at fault for a delay in completing a needs assessment, and insufficient integration between Adult and Children’s services regarding documentation	19 004 087
Windsor & Maidenhead	Inadequate plan	Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead at fault for failing to properly consider the risks when separating a married couple of 59 years, failing to provide adequate care and failing to provide appropriate complaint responses	18 015 872
Hertfordshire	Inadequate plan, Arbitrariness	Hertfordshire County Council at fault for its policy which states it does not meet identified needs for support to maintain a habitable environment	19 000 200
Leeds	inadequate Plan	Leeds City Council at fault for providing poor quality of care and for failing to assess a carer	19 011 131
Wirral	Communication with Education team	Wirral Council at fault for delay in sharing Tribunal outcome with the Adult Social Care Team	19 004 800
Bexley	Inadequate Plan	Bexley at fault for saying it ‘does not fund’ 24-hour care at home but found to be ‘within its discretion’ in limiting its funding for care at home+	22 002 184
Cornwall	Inadequate Plan	Cornwall Council at fault for failing to properly plan transitional care between agencies	20 001 282
Lincolnshire	Inadequate Plan	Lincolnshire County Council reduces a care package on the basis that the staff and carer’s evaluation of the young woman’s abilities was very different – without any fault in approach – but WAS found at fault for failure in putting part of the continuing reduced care package in place	21 014 797
Wiltshire	Inadequate Plan	Wiltshire County Council at fault for failing to provide respite support agreed to be the complainant’s entitlement	20 005 582
Essex	Inadequate Plan, Delay	Essex County Council found to be at fault for delays in reviewing a care and support plan and putting in place care to meet needs	21 008 070
North Somerset	Inadequate Plan	North Somerset was not criticised for refusing to fund more than the cost of an available care home after the client’s welfare attorney rejected the offer. But the council paid 30 weeks’ home care over before finishing a financial assessment concluding she was a full cost payer, such that repayment in full, was expected.	21 018 856
Norfolk	Inadequate Plan	Norfolk County Council at fault for agreeing an increase in care hours without formal authorisation, and then going back on it	22 005 573
Wirral	Inadequate Plan	Wirral Council at fault for failing to complete a timely assessment of care needs, when a person arrived from another council’s area, resulting in a direct loss and breach of the Continuity provisions in ss37-38 of the Care Act	22 005 781
Hillingdon	Inadequate Plan	London Borough of Hillingdon at fault for failing to ensure the only suitable care home had necessary equipment in place and failing to provide timely access to an advocate	21 017 949
Croydon	Inadequate Plan	Croydon Council at fault for appearing to place financial considerations before wellbeing	22 000 071
Surrey	Inadequate Plan	Surrey County Council found at fault for changing care plan arrangements, without prior discussion with the family, causing distress	22 005 425
Redbridge	Inadequate Plan	London Borough of Redbridge is found to be at fault for unjustified delays in reviewing care packages	21 003 768
Lambeth	Inadequate Plan	London Borough of Lambeth at fault for failing to carry out a Mental Capacity Assessment, consider alternative accommodation, provide a care plan and for delays to transport provision	20 000 794
Westminster	Inadequate Plan	Westminster City Council at fault for failing to meet a blind person’s eligible need for support to access the community	19 007 605
Medway	Inadequate Plan	Medway Council delay in providing an assessment of needs, care and support, and a carer’s assessment	22 002 267
Newham	Inadequate Plan	London Borough of Newham at fault for failing to provide a personal budget, failing to explain its reasons for rejecting a placement it had identified, and failing to consider a family’s opinion as to why other placement suggestions were not suitable	20 001 102
Bury Metropolitan	Inadequate Plan	Bury Metropolitan Borough Council at fault for setting arbitrary upper limits to a care plan and not undertaking a financial assessment when requested to do so	22 005 797
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole	Inadequate Plan	Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council chose to stop funding a package over a dispute as to the proper legal basis for it without communication	21 016 607
Stockport	Inadequate Plan	Stockport MBC at fault for failing to provide adequate support in line with a care and support plan	22 009 307
Portsmouth	Inadequate Plan	Portsmouth City Council at fault for failing to address potential wishes o needs for family involvement in processes	22 007 125
North Yorkshire	Inadequate Plan	North Yorkshire County Council at fault for an ineffectual safeguarding investigation and the lack of a care plan	22 011 460
Croydon	Inadequate Plan	London Borough of Croydon at fault for reduction in care package	22 002 217