1. Request a Care Needs Assessment

• Contact Your Local Authority: To get direct payments, you must first contact your local authority (your council) and request a care needs assessment. This is the first step in determining whether you’re eligible for care and whether direct payments are an option for you.
• What Happens in the Assessment?: A social worker or assessor will meet with you (or communicate with you) to assess your care and support needs. This should include your physical, emotional, and practical needs, as well as your preferences for how you receive care.

2. Eligibility for Direct Payments

• After the Assessment: If the assessment shows that you have eligible care needs and need support, you will then decide whether Direct Payments are right for you.
• Direct Payments Offered: If you qualify, the local authority may offer you direct payments as an alternative to receiving care through council-arranged services. These payments are intended to give you more control over how your care is provided.

3. Agreeing to Direct Payments

• Agree to Manage Your Own Care: You must agree to manage the direct payments yourself, or appoint someone to do so on your behalf (like a family member, friend, or someone else you trust). The council will require you to sign an agreement that outlines how the money can be spent and the responsibilities you have in managing it.
• You Decide How to Spend: Direct payments can be used to hire a personal assistant (PA), buy equipment or services that meet your needs, or purchase other types of support. You don’t have to use it in the same way traditional care services would work (e.g., a care agency), which gives you more flexibility.

4. The Care Plan and Budget

• Budget Calculation: Based on your assessment, the local authority will calculate how much money you should receive to meet your care needs. This is the personal budget. Direct payments are typically a monthly sum that should cover the costs of your care plan.
• Budget Restrictions: The money should only be used for services directly related to your care needs. The local authority will explain what the payments can and can’t be used for, and you’ll need to demonstrate how you’re spending the money.

5. Receiving the Payments

• How Payments Are Made: Payments are usually made monthly and could be put into a bank account set up specifically for care payments, or into a managed account that the council oversees.
• Managing the Payments: If you’re managing the payments yourself, you’ll need to keep track of spending and provide receipts, accounts, and reports to show how the funds are being used. This ensures the money is being spent according to your care plan.

6. Ongoing Support and Monitoring

• Support from the Local Authority: You can get help from the local authority in managing direct payments, such as advice on employing a PA or tips on managing the budget.
• Reviews: Your care plan and direct payments will be reviewed regularly (usually annually or if your needs change). During these reviews, the council will check if your needs are being met and if the budget is still appropriate.
• Monitoring Compliance: The council will ensure that direct payments are being used properly. You may need to provide evidence that you’re spending the payments in line with your care plan.

7. Alternatives to Direct Payments

• If you don’t want to manage the payments yourself, you can ask the local authority to arrange care for you directly, but this would mean you lose the flexibility of choosing how your care is managed.

Key Points to Remember:

• Choice and Control: Direct payments give you control over your care, allowing you to decide how you receive support and from whom.
• Responsibility: You must use the direct payments for care-related purposes. You are responsible for managing the money and keeping records.
• Review Process: The local authority will monitor your use of direct payments and may ask you to provide evidence of how it’s being spent.
• Support Available: You can receive help from the local authority in managing direct payments, including information on how to hire a PA, manage your budget, or make changes to your care plan.

There are a number of alternatives to you managing the budget yourself.

1. Nominated Person

• A nominated person is someone you choose to help with managing your direct payments, but they don’t have full control over the funds. They’re more like an advisor or helper who can assist you in making decisions or managing the process.
• What They Can Do: They can:
• Help track spending and ensure that payments are being used for the agreed care services.
• Assist with reporting to the local authority (e.g., submitting receipts or statements of spending).
• They don’t have direct access to the funds but can help you keep records or make decisions on how to spend the money.
• When to Use: This might be a good option if you want someone to help you with organising care but still prefer to retain control over the budget and final decisions.

1. Authorised Person (or Third-Party)

• An authorised person is typically someone who has full legal authority to manage the direct payments on your behalf. They can act on your behalf and make all decisions about how the funds are spent.
• What They Can Do:
• Access the payments: They can directly manage the budget, use the funds, and make payments.
• Choose care services: They can hire staff (like personal assistants), arrange services, or purchase equipment as per your care plan.
• Handle Reporting: They will be responsible for ensuring that records are kept and reports are submitted to the local authority as needed.
• They can act in your best interest but must follow your care plan and ensure the money is being spent appropriately.
• When to Use: This is a good option if you don’t want to be involved in any part of managing the payments but still want to ensure that your needs are met. An authorised person is often used if the individual has difficulties managing finances due to health reasons or cognitive impairments.
• Important: An authorised person is typically appointed when someone lacks the capacity to manage their direct payments themselves. This is particularly relevant if the individual is unable to make decisions regarding finances, care, or other critical aspects due to illness, cognitive impairments, or mental health conditions.
• Can You Choose an Authorised Person if You Have Capacity?: Generally, an authorised person is used when someone lacks capacity. However, if you have capacity (meaning you can make informed decisions about your finances and care), you can still choose to appoint an authorised person, though it’s less common. Most people with capacity prefer to manage the payments themselves or use a nominated person for assistance.
• Capacity and the Mental Capacity Act: If you lack capacity, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides the legal framework for decision-making on your behalf. The authorised person must act in your best interests, and decisions should be made based on your wishes, if they are known, or in a way that would benefit you most.

1. Managed Account

• Some people choose to use a managed account, which is run by a third party or an agency. The agency manages all aspects of the budget on your behalf, including payment processing, care services, and reporting.
• What They Do:
• The agency will handle the day-to-day management of the funds.
• They will hire staff, arrange care services, and submit reports to the local authority.
• When to Use: This option works well for people who need help with the administration of direct payments and don’t have a suitable person (nominated or authorised) to manage the budget.

1. Individual Service Fund (ISF)

• An Individual Service Fund (ISF) is a way to manage your direct payments with the help of a third-party provider. Instead of managing the budget directly or through an authorised person, you work with a provider (e.g., a care agency or organisation) that is responsible for managing your budget and arranging care services for you.
• How It Works:
• The provider holds the direct payments on your behalf and manages how the money is spent to meet your care needs.
• You have input into how the money is spent, but the provider makes the decisions about managing the funds and arranging the services.
• The provider ensures that you receive the appropriate care services and reports back to the local authority.
• When to Use: ISFs are a good option for people who want to have a say in how care is managed but don’t want to handle the administrative burden themselves. This is often used when you need flexibility, but prefer the provider to manage the funding and ensure the care plan is followed.
• Who Manages the Budget: In an ISF, the care provider or service provider manages the direct payments on your behalf, but they must still follow your care plan and ensure the payments are used appropriately. You typically retain some control over how the services are provided, but the budget is held and administered by the provider.

1. Council-Managed Budget

• The local council can also manage your budget for you, meaning that they handle the entire financial management of the direct payments. The council will arrange and pay for the care services on your behalf, and you don’t handle the money directly.
• How It Works:
• The council holds and spends the budget based on your care plan.
• You still have a say in the types of care services you receive, but the local authority will handle the financial aspects, such as payments and accounting.
• This option can be a good choice if you don’t want the responsibility of handling the funds and prefer the local authority to manage everything.
• When to Use: This is typically used by people who are unable or unwilling to manage the budget themselves and prefer the local authority to handle both the funds and the care provision directly.
• Pros and Cons:
• Pros: Less administrative work for you, as the council manages everything.
• Cons: You may have less flexibility in how care services are provided compared to managing the budget yourself or through other options like ISFs.

1. Framing Your Request for Massage or Physiotherapy

If you’re seeking funding for therapies like massage or physiotherapy through direct payments, you’ll need to argue that the therapy is necessary to maintain your well-being and meet your social care needs, not just as a medical treatment. Here’s how you can approach it:

1. Emphasise How It Helps Your Social Care Needs

The key is to show how the therapy supports your daily living and independence, rather than focusing on its medical benefits.

• Massage for Chronic Pain: If you have a condition that causes chronic pain, you could argue that regular massage provides pain relief that enables you to:
• Engage in daily activities like getting dressed, moving around the house, and cooking.
• Maintain social relationships, such as being able to meet friends or attend family events, as the pain relief from massage allows you to be more mobile and less reliant on others.
• Improve your emotional well-being, making you more independent and active in the community.
• Physiotherapy for Mobility: If you require ongoing physiotherapy, you could argue that it helps you maintain the ability to move and carry out tasks such as:
• Shopping, cleaning, and other household chores.
• Leaving the house independently, which is important for your social well-being and mental health.
• Engaging in social activities, such as going out with friends or attending community events, which are crucial for your quality of life.

In both cases, the focus should be on how the therapy enables you to maintain independence, engage in daily living, and support your emotional well-being, rather than focusing on the medical aspects.

1. Show Evidence of Limited NHS Provision

Many local authorities will refuse therapies like physiotherapy if they believe the NHS can cover it, even if the NHS provides it on a limited basis or for short-term needs. To strengthen your case:

• Document NHS Limitations: You need evidence that the NHS only provides physiotherapy for a limited time or in specific circumstances. For example, if the NHS offers only a few sessions of physiotherapy after an injury or surgery, but ongoing care is necessary for you to maintain mobility or prevent further decline, this is important to include.
• Obtain Medical Professional Support: Have a medical professional (such as a GP, physiotherapist, or specialist) write a letter stating:
• Why ongoing physiotherapy or massage is necessary.
• The limitations of NHS care (e.g., the NHS may stop physiotherapy after a certain period, or massage isn’t available at all).
• The impact it will have on your daily life and independence if you do not receive the therapy.

2. How to Make the Case to the Local Authority

To strengthen your case with the local authority, focus on demonstrating that the therapy is essential to meet your social care needs. Here’s how:

• Focus on Well-being and Independence: Frame your need for therapy in terms of how it will help you maintain independence and support your emotional well-being. For example:
• “The therapy helps me manage my chronic pain, enabling me to perform daily activities independently, which contributes to my well-being and mental health.”
• “Ongoing physiotherapy helps me maintain mobility, which is critical for completing tasks like shopping, cleaning, and attending social activities.”
• Provide Supporting Evidence: Ensure you have evidence from medical professionals explaining why this therapy is necessary and how it will directly support your care needs.
  • Why the therapy is required for your specific condition.
  • The limitations of NHS care in your case.
  • How it will help you to meet your care needs (e.g., help with mobility, pain relief, or emotional well-being).
• Ask your GP or specialist for a letter outlining:
• Clarify the Link to Your Care Plan: Make sure the therapy is directly linked to your care plan. For example:
• If your care plan includes assistance with daily tasks like cooking, cleaning, or personal care, and physiotherapy or massage will help you manage pain or mobility issues, make sure to emphasise this connection.

3. Push Back if Your Request Is Denied

Getting the local authority to approve therapies like massage or physiotherapy can be difficult, but don’t give up if your request is denied. Here’s what to do:

1. Request a Review or Reassessment

• If your local authority refuses the request, you can request a review of their decision. Provide additional evidence, such as a letter from your medical professional or supporting documents, and focus on how the therapy is crucial for your social care needs and independence.

1. Use an Advocate

• If you’re having trouble navigating the process, consider asking for an advocate to help. Many organisations, such as Citizens Advice or Disability Rights UK, can provide advocacy services and help you make your case to the local authority.

1. File a Formal Complaint

• If the review doesn’t change the decision, you can file a formal complaint with the local authority. If they still refuse, you may have grounds to take your complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman if you believe the council is making an error in law or failing to fulfil its duties under the Care Act.

4. Summary

• Focus on social care needs, not medical needs: Explain how massage or physiotherapy helps you maintain independence and well-being.
• Provide evidence: Get letters from medical professionals explaining the limitations of NHS care and why ongoing therapy is necessary to meet your care needs.
• Push back if necessary: If the local authority denies your request, file a complaint if needed and if this fails go to the ombudsman.

It can be a tiring and exhausting process, but please don’t give up at the first hurdle and keep pushing.

Sometimes a local authority will say ‘you can’t spend your Direct Payment on that’ without listening to your explanation of why it would meet my needs.

The Care Act guidance, which was cited in the BG & KG v Suffolk [2021] case explains in detail that meeting needs is about more than simply support hours:

“What does it mean to ‘meet needs’?

10.10 ‘Meeting needs’ is an important concept under the Act and moves away from the previous terminology of ‘providing services’. This enables a greater variety of approaches in how needs can be met, developed through care and support planning as described in this chapter. The concept of ‘meeting needs’ is intended to be broader than a duty to provide or arrange a particular service. Because a person’s needs are specific to them, there are many ways in which their needs can be met. The intention behind the legislation is to encourage this diversity, rather than point to a service or solution that may be neither what is best nor what the person wants. The purpose of the care and support planning process is to agree how a person’s needs should be met, and therefore how the local authority will discharge its duty, or its power, to do so.

10.11 There are a number of broad options for how needs could be met, and the use of one or more of these will depend on the circumstances. Section 8(2) of the Act gives some examples of ways of meeting needs, and would cover:

• the local authority directly providing some type of support, for example by providing a reablement or short-term respite service
• making a direct payment, which allows the person to purchase their own care and support
• some combination of the above, for example the local authority arranging a homecare service whilst also providing a direct payment to meet other needs

10.12 Where the local authority provides or arranges for care and support, the type of support may itself take many forms. These may include more traditional ‘service’ options, such as care homes or homecare, but may also include other types of support such as assistive technology in the home or equipment/adaptations, and approaches to meeting needs should be inclusive of less intensive or service-focused options.

10.13 Needs may be met through types of care and support which are available universally, including those which are not directly provided by the local authority. For example, in some cases needs could be met by a service which is also made available as part of a local authority’s plans for preventing or reducing needs for care and support (under Section 2 of the Act). Needs could also be met, for example, by putting a person in contact with a local community group or voluntary sector organisation.

10.14 The examples of how needs can be met listed in the Act are not exhaustive, but cover the most common means of meeting needs…”

On the issue of how needs are met and the use of budgets to pay for things other than support hours, three particularly important paragraphs of the Care Act statutory guidance to quote in a situation where a local authority is saying that a budget can only be spent on paying PAs are the following (especially the last sentence of the last one!):

“12.35 The direct payment is designed to be used flexibly and innovatively and there should be no unreasonable restriction placed on the use of the payment, as long as it is being used to meet eligible care and support needs.”

“10.31 The local authority should encourage creativity in planning how to meet needs, and refrain from judging unusual decisions as long as these are determined to meet needs in a reasonable way.

10.48 It is important that people are allowed to be very flexible to choose innovative forms of care and support, from a diverse range of sources, including quality providers but also ‘non-service’ options such as Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) equipment, club membership, and massage. Lists of allowable purchases should be avoided as the range of possibilities should be very wide and will be beyond what the local authority is able to list at any point in time.”

The Care Act guidance is statutory guidance issued under s.78 Care Act and local authorities have to comply with it unless they have a legally sound reason for not doing so (e.g. something would be illegal, impossible or against medical advice not just they can’t afford it or don’t want to).

The Care Act itself and the Care and Support regulations are law and local authorities must comply with the law.

Local authorities are allowed to have their own policies, but those policies must comply with the law. If a policy and the law are in conflict, then the law must be followed and the policy may well be unlawful.

It is, unfortunately, common these days for public bodies to make decisions without informing the person affected of the reasons for their decision and also to avoid providing decisions/assessments/care plans in writing.

The public law principle of fairness requires that a public body must provide a rationale (reasons) for its decisions as an aspect of procedural fairness when making decisions which may adversely affect an individual (R v Home Secretary, ex p Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 at 14).

There are also some places in the Care Act where it specifically requires written information (and sometimes reasons) to be provided to the person concerned. These are:

Care Act s.13(2) requires “Having made a determination [of which needs meet the eligibility criteria], the local authority must give the adult concerned a written record of the determination and the reasons for it.”

Care Act s.25(9) requires “The local authority must give a copy of a care and support plan to—

(a)the adult for whom it has been prepared,

(b)any carer that the adult has, if the adult asks the authority to do so, and

(c)any other person to whom the adult asks the authority to give a copy.”

So, making those legal points to the council when asking for copies of assessments, care plans and reasons for decisions may help overcome this.

The first step is to write a formal complaint letter setting out the relevant rules as below:

The Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 Schedule 1, part 1 sets out “the Sums to be disregarded in the calculation of income” [in the financial assessment]. This is law and disregarding those sums is mandatory, not optional for local authorities.

In that section, paragraph 4 states:

“(1) Where a local authority takes into account in the calculation of income any disability benefits the adult receives, any disability-related expenditure incurred by the adult.”

This means that “any disability-related expenditure incurred by the adult” must, therefore, be disregarded in calculating their income in the financial assessment.

The section goes on to set out the following definitions:

“(2) In this paragraph—

“disability benefits” means any attendance allowance (other than severe disablement occupational allowance), disability living allowance or personal independence payment;

“disability-related expenditure” includes payment for any community alarm system, costs of any privately arranged care services required including respite care, and the costs of any specialist items needed to meet the adult’s disability.”

The word ‘includes’ means that it includes those things, but is not necessarily limited to those things.

Care Act guidance annex C para 40 gives more detail setting out that “In assessing disability-related expenditure, local authorities should include the following. However, it should also be noted that this list is not intended to be exhaustive and any reasonable additional costs directly related to a person’s disability should be included”.  And in para. 41 “The care plan may be a good starting point for considering what is necessary disability-related expenditure. However, flexibility is needed. What is disability-related expenditure should not be limited to what is necessary for care and support.”

This means that, while there is room for an evidence-based assessment of what is “disability-related expenditure” (DRE), this is not a matter of discretion where the local authority can simply do whatever it likes.

In the case of RW v Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead [2023] EWHC 1449 (Admin) at 66, it was held that “What the statutory guidance makes clear is that the local authority must look at the individual’s life holistically and carefully examine the individual circumstances. The days when there were a restricted number of standard models of care that the vulnerable adult had to fit into have gone. The modern ethos places the individual at the centre. It asks anxiously about her or his need arising from the specific disability. It looks at whether there is additional expenditure beyond the care and support package. It then asks whether it is relevant to the disability (“related to”) and reasonable.”

In the same case, the local authority had decided that costs incurred by the claimant were not DRE. The judge found that “the defendant has simply not taken into account relevant factors and has given far too much weight to financial matters in precisely the way that the Guidance seeks to prevent.” (at 75) and it was held that decision was wrong “in that it did not take into account, or not sufficiently, important factors around adverse emotional impact, social anxiety, the claimant’s wishes and feelings, autonomy and choice. Instead, the defendant gave disproportionate, excessive and unreasonable weight to financial considerations and did not consider the limited cost of the activities compared to the total personal budget.” (at 76)

That case made clear (at 90 & 91) that:

“The purpose of DRE is to support people living with disability counter and reduce the impact of deficits that affect their daily lives which a large majority of the population are fortunate enough to suffer from. The expenditure cannot be limitless or open-ended. There must be a logical connection to the need. But once there is, the rules and guidance must be interpreted not only broadly and reasonably (Paragraph 4 of Part 1, Schedule 1 of the Charging Regulations; para 40 of Annex C of the Guidance), but with a genuine and humane understanding of difficulties people living with disabilities face. The high legal obligation, deriving from international jurisprudence about the importance of autonomy for people with disabilities, is to put them at the centre of the decision-making. The Preamble of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities unmistakably recognises:

“…the importance for persons with disabilities of their individual autonomy and independence, including the freedom to make their own choices” (Preamble, (n))

91. The power contained in the DRE regulations has as its existential purpose the reasonable and fair assessment of the ways that we as a community can support people living with disability. This is the approach the defendant must take.”

This case, therefore, provides very strong support to underpin any challenge to decisions to disallow DREs where evidence and reasoning has been provided as to why they are genuinely disability-related expenditure.

Start by writing a formal letter to the person making the decision and their managers (as senior as possible). If you know the relevant contact details, copy in the council’s legal department.

In that letter set out a summary of what has happened and quote the relevant law (see answers below) explaining why the decision is wrong. Set a time limit for a response (e.g. 10 working days).

If that fails to resolve the matter, then you may need to either (a) go through the full formal complaints process and then, if necessary, complain to the Ombudsman and/or (b) with or without the help of a solicitor, write a pre-action letter and then, if necessary, seek a Judicial Review.

In both cases, setting out the relevant law from the answers below will improve the chances of successfully challenging decisions.

It is appropriate to send a letter before action when:

• You disagree with a decision taken by the council;
• More informal approaches to resolving the issue have failed; and
• You are confident that the decision has not been taken correctly (a procedural flaw) or is actually unlawful, and not merely you don’t agree with it.

A decision may be procedurally flawed where a local authority has:

• acted outside its powers
• failed to take into account of relevant information
• failed to disregard irrelevant information
• not addressed the correct question (under the law) when making its decision
• unduly restricted or “fettered” its discretion by applying a blanket policy and refusing to consider evidence as to why a particular case should be an exception
• failed to follow government guidance without a good reason (and, normally, explaining what that reason is)
• made an irrational decision – this is a very hard test. It has been described in various ways, as showing that the decision “is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it” (Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation [1947] EWCA Civ 1); as Lord Diplock described it in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1984] UKHL 9 it is “so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.”; as Lord Diplock put it in Secretary of State for Education v Tameside BC [1977] AC 1014, 1065B the question of reasonableness requires asking: Did the decision maker “ask himself the right question and take reasonable steps to acquaint himself with the relevant information to enable him to answer it correctly?”.
• unlawfully infringed a person’s human rights (usually by acting in a way which is not proportionate)
• followed an unfair procedure – for example by not giving a person any opportunity to put forward evidence about a decision which affects them

It is possible (and usual) to challenge a decision on more than one ground where more than one ground applies. Further information about public law and the grounds for Judicial Review can be found here. If possible, it is usually wise to seek legal advice to help identify the specific grounds that may apply in your case.

Timescales – a letter before action should follow the format and requirements of the Judicial Review pre-action protocol. It will need to contain a proposed reply date, 14 days is a reasonable time to allow in most circumstances. If you decide to issue Judicial Review proceedings the claim must be started (by submitting a Claim Form and having it formally issued by the Court) not later than 3 months after the decision you are seeking to challenge was made (or the grounds for making the claim first arose if they are something other than a decision).

The rules and guidance on Judicial Review proceedings can be found in the Judicial Review Guide – ensure you are using the most up to date version which is available here. It is important to be aware that, if you issue Judicial Review proceedings you could, potentially, be liable for the defendant’s costs if you lose the case. However there is no such costs risk involved in sending a letter before action.

Yes. The Care Act guidance annex C para 40 (c)(viii) explicitly lists “reasonable costs of basic garden maintenance, cleaning, or domestic help, if necessitated by the individual’s disability and not met by social services” as an item which should be considered as potential Disability-related expenditure.

There is also relevant case law. In the case of  B, R (on the application of) v Cornwall Council & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 55 it was held that it was an unlawful fettering of discretion for a local authority to disallow certain types of expenditure as disability-related expenditure as a matter of policy, without considering whether they are legitimately disability-related expenditure (on the basis set out in response to q.1) considering the relevant evidence in a particular case.

It was also held that a local authority must engage with the person and assess their needs in coming to that decision, not merely tell the person to provide them with evidence: “the authority cannot avoid its obligation to assess needs etc by failing to make an appropriate assessment themselves, in favour of simply requiring the service user himself to provide evidence of his needs.” (para. 68 of B, R (on the application of) v Cornwall County Council & Anor [2009] EWHC 491 (Admin), the original judgement which was upheld on appeal).

Also see the other question relating to disability related expenses for more information.

In a situation where needs have not changed, it can only potentially be lawful to cut existing care provision under the Care Act if, after a full reassessment, a local authority is able to make a reasoned argument that either (a) the previous care provision was ‘overly generous’ and the same needs can appropriately be met by the reduced services or (b) your condition or abilities have improved and some needs have genuinely gone away.

Under the Care Act, the personal budget must be sufficient to actually meet the assessed eligible needs appropriately (including Direct Payments) (Care Act s.18 & 26, Guidance 11.10 and 12.25) and the council must be able to specify exactly how that amount can be used to meet the needs appropriately (CP v North East Lincolnshire Council [2018]). A local authority can only propose a cheaper or reduced care plan if that cheaper/reduced way of meeting the assessed eligible needs is accessible, available and will actually meet the needs appropriately (Guidance 10.27).

It is important to note that simply ‘signposting’ to alternatives is not adequate to meet eligible needs. The Care Act guidance is clear “The duty to meet eligible needs is not discharged just because a person has another entitlement to a different service which could meet those needs, but of which they are not availing themselves. The needs remain ‘unmet’ (and so the local authority remains under a duty to meet them) until those needs are actually met by the relevant service bring provided or arranged.” (Guidance 10.25)

The Care Act guidance also states that “The periodic review should be proportionate to the needs to be met, and the process should not contain any surprises for the person concerned. Periodic reviews and reviews in general must not be used to arbitrarily reduce a care and support package. Such behaviour would be unlawful under the Act as the personal budget must always be an amount appropriate to meet the person’s needs. Any reduction to a personal budget should be the result of a change in need or circumstance.” (Guidance 13.33)

In  P, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Croydon [2022] EWHC 2886 (Admin), a local authority’s decision to fund only 35 hours of support via a Direct Payment despite an assessment setting out complex and extensive needs was held to be unlawful because there was no reasoning as to how that level of support could possibly meet the claimant’s assessed needs. It was also successfully challenged on the grounds that the decision and accompanying plan had been made and signed off without any involvement of the person or her family, contrary to the Care Act guidance. The judge concluded “ Although the Defendant, entirely properly, involved the Claimant and her family in its October 2021 assessment process, it went on (having rejected the key recommendations of that process) to determine the Claimant’s current personal budget and her CSP [Care and Support Plan] without any further substantial involvement of the Claimant or her family. Indeed, as I have mentioned, they did not know about the CSP’s existence until after proceedings were commenced.” and that, therefore, the decisions on the claimant’s personal budget and care and support plan were unlawful.

The most important recent case law on the issue of meeting assessed eligible needs is BG & KG v Suffolk [2022] EWCA Civ 1047. In that case, the local authority had withdrawn the provision of a direct payment that the claimants’ had been using (with the prior agreement of the council) to meet their assessed eligible needs by paying for recreational activities and breaks as a whole family. In the original case (BG & KG v Suffolk [2021]), the judge said  “I am unable to find any statutory basis for the restrictive interpretation of needs adopted by the Council.” [para.102] and “There was no mention of the impact of a lack of financial support to enable him to achieve the outcomes of making use of recreational facilities and developing or maintaining relationships.  In my view, these matters were wrongly excluded from consideration.” [para. 141]

The local authority appealed against this decision, but the decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal (in BG & KG v Suffolk [2022]) where it was held that: “It was the [local authority’s] view … that [the informal carer] was meeting all the respondents’ eligible needs. This was at the core of the operative decision challenged … I find that such a determination was wrong. I find that it was based upon a restrictive and incorrect interpretation of the relevant needs pursuant to the CA 2014 and the 2015 Regulations. Had the appellant not acted upon this restrictive and wrong interpretation, it would or should have reached different decisions in the assessment” [para.79]

This case is directly relevant and likely to be useful to cite in any situation where a local authority is proposing to remove provision to meet certain areas of need.

The Care Act eligibility criteria are found in regulation 2 Care and Support (Eligibility Regulations) 2015 (the regulations referred to in the above case). These are law and local authorities must follow them. If a local authority has assessed an adult as having eligible needs in any of the 10 domains, then the local authority has a duty to meet those assessed eligible needs (Care Act ss.13 &18). Following the assessment, the local authority is required to give the person a written record of which of their needs it has found to be eligible according to the criteria and the reasons for that decision (Care Act s.13(1&2)).

The 10 outcomes in the Eligibility regulations are:

(a) managing and maintaining nutrition;

(b)maintaining personal hygiene;

(c)managing toilet needs;

(d)being appropriately clothed;

(e)being able to make use of the adult’s home safely;

(f)maintaining a habitable home environment;

(g)developing and maintaining family or other personal relationships;

(h)accessing and engaging in work, training, education or volunteering;

(i)making use of necessary facilities or services in the local community including public transport, and recreational facilities or services; and

(j)carrying out any caring responsibilities the adult has for a child.

So, a Care Act assessment must show which of these outcomes the adult is unable to meet, and a Care Act care plan must show how a local authority intends to meet these assessed eligible needs (Care Act s.25(1)).

The Care Act statutory guidance says:

“Direct payments in the form of pre-paid or pre-payment cards

12.58 Many local authorities have been developing the use of pre-paid cards as a mechanism to allow direct payments without the need for a separate bank account, or to ease the financial management of the payment. Whilst the use of such cards can be a useful step from managed services to direct payments, they should not be provided as the only option to take a direct payment. The offer of a ‘traditional’ direct payment paid into a bank account should always be available if this is what the person requests and this is appropriate to meet needs. Consideration should be given to the benefit gained from this arrangement as opposed to receiving the payment via a pre-paid card.”

A local authority is under a duty to follow this statutory guidance unless it has a legally sound reason why not. Such a reason would have to be based on evidence e.g. the individual in question has previously mis-used a direct payment. Any blanket policy to not allow any option other than a pre-payment card, especially given the explicit statement in the guidance above that this should not be the case, is highly likely to be an unlawful fettering of discretion.

The Care Act itself, in s.31(2), defines a “direct payment” as a payment made to the adult or nominated person. It is also potentially arguable, therefore, that a pre-payment card is not, in fact, a payment made to the adult, since the funds remain in the possession of the local authority and do not actually pass into the possession of the adult. The difficulty with this argument is that the sections of the Care Act guidance quoted above do explicitly envisage the use of pre-payment cards as an option for direct payments, just not as the only option. Nevertheless, the explicit statement in the Care Act guidance quoted above that the offer of a direct payment paid into a bank account should always be available should be sufficient to challenge any insistence on the use of a pre-payment card.

This is a very interesting question and one which arises increasingly frequently. The short answer is that, whilst whether you have the right to refuse is unclear, your PA does have the right to refuse. Your PA is your employee and has no direct relationship with or obligations towards the Local Authority.

As your employee they have a duty of confidentiality to you – it likely says so in your employment contract with them and, even if it doesn’t, they have a common law duty of confidentiality. A breach of confidentiality in employment occurs when an employee discloses sensitive information belonging to their employer without authorisation from the employer. So if your PA were to disclose confidential information about you to the local authority without your permission they would be at risk of being in breach of their employment contract and at risk of disciplinary action and even dismissal, unless they have a sound legal reason for disclosing the information (such as a safeguarding concern). The local authority has no legal basis through which they could require or force your PA to speak to them and your PA has every reason to be concerned that they would be at risk of being in breach of their employment contract with you if they were to agree to speak to them over your objections.

A local authority could argue that you refusing to give your PA permission to speak to them is unreasonable, but the onus would be on them to explain why they needed to speak directly to your PA in order to carry out a proportionate review. Unless they have a cogent reason, such as that they have a legitimate reason to suspect there is fraud, mismanagement or something untoward going on, or that you are unable to provide them with the relevant information yourself.

As with the answer to the previous question, I would suggest asking the local authority to explain (in writing) why they say that they need further information from your PA which you cannot give them yourself, given the other information they already have. It may then be relevant to argue that this is disproportionate and overly intrusive with the impact on your wellbeing and even Article 8 rights as set out above.

The Care and Support (Direct Payments) Regulations 2014 Regulation 4(1) says that “A local authority may make a direct payment subject to other conditions.”

However it then goes on to say (in Regulation 4(3)(b)) that those conditions “may not require information to be provided to the authority (i)more frequently and in more detail than is reasonably required by the authority for the purpose of enabling it to ascertain that (aa)making direct payments is an appropriate way to meet the needs in question, or (bb)the conditions upon which it is made are complied with, or (ii)in a format which is not reasonably practicable for the adult or authorised person to provide.”

This regulation is law and a local authority must abide by it. So it is likely to be helpful to explicitly ask the local authority to explain (in writing) why they say that they need this information, given the other information they already have, to quote this regulation to them and to say that this would appear to be a demand for a level of information which is in much more detail than is reasonably required for the purposes set out in the regulation, given the other information you already provide.

There are also several parts of the Care Act guidance that may be relevant to this. All of them highlight that information a local authority asks for must be proportionate to the reason they are asking for it. ‘Proportionate’ means that information being asked for, the intrusiveness of the request and the demands it places on you should be reasonable when balanced against the decision the local authority is making and the role of that information in helping them to make the decision.

With regard to a Care Act assessment, the guidance says “An ‘assessment’ must always be appropriate and proportionate.” (Care Act guidance 6.3).

Talking about reviews of Care Plans the guidance says “13.2 The review process should be person-centred and outcomes-focused, as well as accessible and proportionate to the needs to be met.” (Care Act guidance 13.2) And that “The Act specifies that plans must be kept under review generally.

Therefore, local authorities should establish systems that allow the proportionate monitoring of both care and support plans and support plans to ensure that needs are continuing to be met. … The review should be a positive opportunity to take stock and consider if the plan is enabling the person to meet their needs and achieve their aspirations. The process should not be overly-complex or bureaucratic” (Care Act guidance 13.11-12). The guidance goes on to say:

“Local authorities should have regard to ensuring the planned review is proportionate to the circumstances, the value of the personal budget and any risks identified. In a similar way to care and support or support planning, there should be a range of review options available, which may include self-review, peer-led review, reviews conducted remotely, or face to face reviews with a social worker or other relevant professional. For example, where the person has a stable, longstanding support package with fixed or long-term outcomes, they may wish to complete a self-review at the planned time which is then submitted to the local authority to sign-off, rather than have a face to face review with their social worker. This does not preclude their requesting a review at another time or a face to face review being needed if there is an unplanned change in needs or circumstances.” (Care Act guidance 13.6)

In relation to Direct Payments specifically, the Care Act guidance is also clear that monitoring arrangements should be proportionate and not overly intrusive, saying:

“For direct payments to have the maximum impact, the processes involved in administering and monitoring the payment should incorporate the minimal elements to allow the local authority to fulfil its statutory responsibilities. These processes must not restrict choice or stifle innovation by requiring that the adult’s needs are met by a particular provider, and must not place undue burdens on people to provide information to the local authority.” (Care Act guidance 12.4)

In more detail later on, the guidance says:

 “The local authority must be satisfied that the direct payment is being used to meet the care and support needs set out in the plan, and should therefore have systems in place to proportionally monitor direct payment usage to ensure effective use of public money. The Care and Support (Direct Payments) Regulations 2014 set out that the local authority must review the making of direct payments initially within 6 months, and thereafter every 12 months, and must not require information to be provided more often and in more detail than is reasonably required for the purpose of enabling the authority to know that making direct payment is still an appropriate way of meeting the needs, and that conditions upon which it is made are met. Local authorities should not design systems that place a disproportionate reporting burden upon the individual. The reporting system should not clash with the policy intention of direct payments to encourage greater autonomy, flexibility and innovation. For example, people should not be requested to duplicate information or have onerous monitoring requirements placed upon them. Monitoring should be proportionate to the needs to be met and the care package. Thus local authorities should have regard to lowering monitoring requirements for people that have been managing direct payments without issues for a long period.” (Care Act guidance 12.24)

Local authorities are under a general duty to promote the individual’s wellbeing in exercising all of their functions under the Care Act (s.1(1)). Wellbeing is defined by the Care Act (s.1(2) as:

(a)personal dignity (including treatment of the individual with respect);

(b)physical and mental health and emotional well-being;

(c)protection from abuse and neglect;

(d)control by the individual over day-to-day life (including over care and support, or support, provided to the individual and the way in which it is provided);

(e)participation in work, education, training or recreation;

(f)social and economic well-being;

(g)domestic, family and personal relationships;

(h)suitability of living accommodation;

(i)the individual’s contribution to society.

In an individual case, it may be worth setting out the impact of any disproportionate or overly intrusive demands the local authority is making on your wellbeing in these terms.

It may also be arguable, depending on the circumstances, that a disproportionately intrusive demand for information could potentially infringe a person’s Article 8 right to respect for their Home, Family and Private life. Article 8 is a Human Right protected by the Human Rights Act 1998. Local authorities must not interfere with a person’s Article 8 rights unless that infringement is both proportionate and done in pursuit of a legitimate goal. See the British Institute of Human Rights for further information on Human Rights law.

Finally, it is, ultimately, the responsibility of the local authority and not the individual concerned to gather evidence to carry out its statutory duties under the Care Act. To date, there is no case law under the Care Act on this exact point. However, it has been held in an earlier Judicial Review in the community care field (which is still relevant) that a local authority must engage with the person and assess their needs in coming to its decisions, not merely tell the person to provide them with evidence: “the authority cannot avoid its obligation to assess needs etc by failing to make an appropriate assessment themselves, in favour of simply requiring the service user himself to provide evidence of his needs.” (para. 68 of B, R (on the application of) v Cornwall County Council & Anor [2009] EWHC 491 (Admin),

That is definitely a decision that can be challenged. The Care Act sets out strong duties owed to individuals regarding advocacy. These are for Assessments, Care Planning and Reviews (in s.67) and in Safeguarding enquiries (in s.68). In both cases, the Care Act says the local authority must “arrange for a person who is independent of the authority (an “independent advocate”) to be available to represent and support the individual for the purpose of facilitating the individual’s involvement” (s.67(2)) where an individual would “experience substantial difficulty” with one or more of “(a) understanding relevant information; (b)retaining that information; (c)using or weighing that information as part of the process of being involved; or (d)communicating the individual’s views, wishes or feelings (whether by talking, using sign language or any other means).”

Whether the person would have “substantial difficulty” is a decision for the local authority, not the person, but that decision must be fair, rational and evidence-based (public law principles).

Once a local authority accepts that a person would experience substantial difficulty they have a duty to arrange an independent advocate unless there is a suitable informal person to support them (s67(5)). However, the Care Act goes on to say that “a person is not to be regarded as an appropriate person unless—(a)where the individual has capacity or is competent to consent to being represented and supported by that person, the individual does so consent, or (b) where the individual lacks capacity or is not competent so to consent, the local authority is satisfied that being represented and supported by that person would be in the individual’s best interests.” (s. 67(6)).

So it is unlawful for a local authority to refuse to provide an advocate on the grounds that there is a friend or family member where the person being assessed/reviewed doesn’t consent to the friend or family member acting in place of an advocate.

Under the relevant regulations (The Care and Support (Independent Advocacy Support) (No. 2) Regulations 2014), the local authority also can’t insist on the friend or family member in place of an independent advocate if the friend or family member doesn’t agree that they are suitable (regulation 4).

There is also relevant case law. In R (SG) v London Borough of Haringey [2015] a Care Act assessment was quashed because of the local authority’s failure to provide an independent advocate when required to do so by the Care Act. In that case the circumstances were that the local authority had a shortage of advocates (presumably due to lack of funding) – a common issue – which is not a defence to failing to fulfil a statutory duty.

A local authority has a statutory duty to set a personal budget (under s.26 Care Act) that is sufficient to meet the assessed eligible needs (s. 25(6) read with s.9(4) Care Act 2014). This includes where the personal budget is provided by way of a direct payment, as the Care Act statutory guidance makes clear: “The amount of the direct payment is derived from the personal budget as set out in the care and support plan, or support plan, and thus must be an amount which is sufficient to meet the needs the local authority has a duty or power to meet.” (Care Act guidance 12.25).

In Davey v Oxfordshire CC [2017] EWCA Civ 1308 a local authority’s decision to reduce a personal budget on the basis of reducing rates of pay for PAs to minimum wage was upheld on the basis that, on the specific facts of that case, there was evidence to support the local authority’s contention that this would be sufficient to meet the assessed individual’s care needs and was adequate in the light of local market conditions, together with an undertaking that the sufficiency of the budget would be reviewed should market conditions change. In that case, in circumstances where the PAs were family members of the person supported, it was held that there was “no sufficient evidence that, at the time of the impugned decisions, or indeed since, the changes in the pay and conditions of the PAs had resulted or will result in the break up of the existing team of PAs, or indeed any one or more members of the team of PAs leaving.” [72]. In an individual case, therefore, it can be lawful for a local authority to set a personal budget based on reducing PA’s pay to minimum wage. However, the lawfulness of any such decision will depend on the facts of the individual case. So, for such a decision to be defensible, an evidence base for the decision in each specific case will be required and it would be an unlawful fettering of discretion (public law principles) for a local authority to apply a blanket policy to that effect to all recipients of Direct Payments.

In the case of R (on the application of Dunn) v Lancashire [2025]  (a judicial review that was ultimately settled by a consent order), the local authority had been sending a standard letter to DP recipients which stated:

“Please be aware the below information details the general requirements of the Direct Payment Scheme:

As an employer you will need to ensure your PA’s hourly rate of pay meets the requirements of the National Minimum Wage. You cannot use your Direct Payments to pay a higher hourly rate than advised as this would leave you with insufficient money to cover all of your financial commitments, which include notice/redundancy/holiday pay etc. If you continue to pay a higher hourly rate you will need to meet these costs or any shortfalls from your own personal funds.

Should you have any concerns regarding your hourly rate, you are advised to contact the Lancashire Independent Living Service to seek advice on reducing your PA’s hourly rate.”

Ultimately, in that case, the defendant local authority accepted that its letter:

 “could cause confusion including regarding the following:

• that the local authority requires them to reduce rates of pay for personal assistants to the minimum wage;
• that the local authority sets or intends to set their personal budgets at a level based on paying minimum wage without regard to the sufficiency of their personal budget;
• that they would be responsible for meeting the costs of any higher pay rate from their own personal funds regardless of whether the local authority has set their personal budget at a level sufficient to meet their assessed eligible needs in accordance with the Care Act.”

The defendant local authority accepted that “each of those assertions could be inconsistent with s.25(6) read with s. 9(4) CA 2014 and potentially an unlawful fettering of its discretion.” R (on the application of Dunn) v Lancashire [2025] at 12.

In situations such as those outlined in the questions, it is important, therefore, to assemble evidence of the level of pay which is required in a particular case to recruit and retain PAs with the skills required to meet the assessed eligible needs. Such evidence might include:

• Assessments detailing the specialist nature of support required to meet the needs
• Records showing unsuccessful attempts to recruit and/or retain PAs at a lower level of pay over prolonged period
• Evidence regarding competitive levels of pay in the local area for similar roles

The Care Act states (in s.33(3)) that “A direct payment is made on condition that it be used only to pay for arrangements under which the needs specified … in the care and support plan … are met.”. A local authority may also make a Direct Payment subject to other conditions (The Care and Support (Direct Payments) Regulations 2014 Regulation 4(1)). It is common for those conditions to include compliance with the local authority’s Direct Payments policy*. Recipients of Direct Payments do have to comply with these conditions.

However, it is a long established principle of common law, further reinforced by Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (the ‘right to a fair trial’), that, public bodies must act fairly when reaching decisions which adversely affect individuals, particularly where that decision is, essentially, an accusation of dishonesty. A relevant case to quote is Roberts v Secretary of State [2005] UKHL 45 [at 41] in which it was held: “An administrative body is required to act fairly when reaching a decision which could adversely affect those who are the subject of the decision”. This means that, if a local authority has any concerns about the use of a Direct Payment, it should raise those concerns with the person and give them a fair opportunity to explain and justify any expenditure.

In the case of R (on the application of Dunn) v Lancashire [2025]  (a judicial review that was ultimately settled by a consent order), the local authority accepted that its decision, to demand repayment of a sum of Direct Payments which it had claimed ‘fell outside its Direct Payments policy’ and which it had invoiced for repayment of without the  recipient being given any opportunity to explain the payments in question, was unfair and withdrew the decision.

*However, for a person to be held to a condition of abiding by a local authority’s policy, that local authority’s policy must itself be lawful. The Care Act itself (which says that a direct payment must be used only to pay for arrangements under which the needs specified in the care and support plan are met (s.33(3))).  Many local authority policies are much more restrictive and say that a Direct Payment can only be spent on the specific items specified in the care plan. To date there is no case law on this issue. However, there is a potential argument that such policies are unlawfully restrictive. This is because the Care Act guidance (at 10.48) specifically warns local authorities that “Lists of allowable purchases should be avoided as the range of possibilities should be very wide and will be beyond what the local authority is able to list at any point in time.” and it is very clear throughout the Care Act that the ethos of Direct Payment is intended to provide flexibility and control for the individual. Therefore, there is a viable argument that could be put before a court that any requirement in a local authority policy to restrict the use of Direct Payments in that way is ultra vires (beyond the power of the local authority and, therefore, unlawful) because it would frustrate the overall policy of the legislation from which the power to create such conditions is derived (the Padfield principle – from the case Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] UKHL 1 ).

An optional checklist, which an adult in receipt of a Direct payment under the Care Act may choose to use to assist decision making in relation to DP expenditure and as evidence of that decision making should any dispute arise is available here.

It does need to take into account housing-related costs, but they are defined so as to be mortgage and rent, first and foremost. Councils are able – because all charging is discretionary – to be more generous and you can ask them to articulate their reasons for saying no, for instance to allowing for buildings insurance liabilities, but that is all.

Service charges attached to tenancies in supported living are usually allowed, I think. The regulation that compels the disregard of housing-related costs is para 2 of schedule 1 to the 2014 regulations:

• Housing related costs means any mortgage repayments, payments by way of rent or ground rent, council tax or service charges (other than service charges which are ineligible under Schedule 1 to the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, which are all those related to services that are not strictly related to the accommodation, examples being
• Charges for day-to-day living expenses, including:

• Meals (including preparation or provision of unprepared food)
• Laundry (except provision of premises or equipment for self-laundry)
• Leisure items (such as sports facilities, except a children’s play area; TV rental, licence, and subscription fees, except radio relay charges and charges for TV relay equipment)
• Cleaning of rooms and windows (except cleaning of communal areas or exterior windows where the tenant cannot do it themselves and no local authority payment is made for this)
• Transport
• Charges for acquisition or use of furniture or household equipment, where the equipment will become the property of the claimant
• Charges for emergency alarm systems
• Charges for medical expenses, including treatment or counselling
• Charges for provision of nursing or personal care (including help with meals or personal hygiene)
• Charges for general counselling or support services
• Charges for any services not connected with the provision of adequate accommodation
• Charges for fuel

3.—(1) Any payment which would be disregarded under paragraph 5 of Schedule 9 to the Income Support Regulations (housing benefit)

(2) Any payment of income support towards housing costs determined in accordance with Schedule 3 to the Income Support Regulations (housing costs) or any amount that the local authority considers would be determined as a payment towards housing costs, if the adult were in receipt of income support.

(3) Any payment which would be disregarded under paragraph 46 of Schedule 9 to the Income Support Regulations (reduction of liability for council tax)

No it cannot do that. The implication is that you’ve paid a person to say what you want, which is not always the case, but is getting more likely. So you have to establish the credentials of the expert and say what the instructions were, and then remind the authority that they have an obligation to take account of all relevant considerations, and not fetter their discretion and force them to address the evidence, on pain of a complaint to the ombudsman.

Yes, every authority has to have a delegation scheme for the discharge of statutory functions which you can FOI. The decision about eligibility is a statutory duty if the assessment has identified any need for care or support. The decision about the budget is a local authority decision which someone must take responsibility for. You can write to the Monitoring Officer to ask about the panel its constitution and its decision making process.

This is information in the public domain as the officer is a statutory officer.

A Statutory Monitoring Officer is a role within local government (and sometimes other public bodies) responsible for ensuring that the organisation complies with legal and ethical standards. They play a crucial role in overseeing governance, ensuring the proper use of resources, and safeguarding public trust.

Key responsibilities include:

1. Ensuring Legal Compliance: They monitor the organisation’s activities to ensure that decisions, policies, and actions comply with the law, including adherence to statutory regulations and guidelines.

2. Advising on Governance: They provide guidance to the organisation’s leaders and staff on legal and ethical matters, helping prevent decisions that could lead to legal issues.

3. Investigating Complaints: They might investigate allegations of breaches of rules, ethics, or the law, including misconduct by councillors or officers.

4. Reporting: The Monitoring Officer must report any illegal, improper, or unethical actions to the relevant authorities, including the council or other oversight bodies.

5. Promoting Transparency: They ensure transparency and accountability within the organisation’s operations, helping maintain public confidence.

In short, a Statutory Monitoring Officer acts as a watchdog for legal and ethical issues within an organisation, ensuring everything is above board legally and ethically.

To find yours search Statutory Monitoring Officer alongside the name of your council, or contact them directly.

Yes, there are care providers in the supported living sector who explicitly promote collaboration and co-caring with families during the transition to supported living for adults with learning disabilities and/or autism. AI can do this sort of search for you!

Examples from Care Providers

1. We Support Ltd.

We Support Ltd. provides supported living services and is explicit about its commitment to ongoing family collaboration at the point of transition and beyond. Their approach includes:

• Active Promotion of Family Involvement: Families are encouraged to be involved from initial contact, through the transition, and after the person is settled.
• Transition Planning: Family members are invited to transition planning meetings and their input is considered invaluable for building a complete picture of the person’s needs and preferences.
• Ongoing Co-Caring: Family involvement doesn’t end after the move; families receive regular updates, are consulted in care planning and risk assessments, and can be involved in staff recruitment for their relative’s support team.
• Flexible Involvement: The level of family involvement is tailored to each family’s wishes, always respecting the person’s consent and rights^[1].

> “The input provided by family members during the transition period is invaluable and more often than not it helps us to build a picture of the person we will be supporting much better than any amount of documentation can, even more so when the family members have been the main carers for an individual who is now transitioning into Supported Living Services.”^[1]

2. Leaf Care

Leaf Care describes a collaborative transition process that includes:

• Co-Designing Transition Plans: Arranging transition planning meetings with the person and their family to co-design a detailed, tailored plan.
• Recognition of Family Role: The process explicitly values the role of the family and support network in creating a plan that addresses the person’s specific needs and preferences^[2].

3. Catalyst Care Group

Catalyst Care Group highlights:

• Ongoing Collaboration: The transition to supported living requires ongoing collaboration with family members, caregivers, and professionals to address evolving needs and maximise well-being.
• Person-Centred Support: Support strategies are formed in close collaboration with the person’s family and caregivers, starting with a thorough evaluation and continuing throughout the transition^[3].

Research and Good Practice

Research underscores that some families feel pressured to “let go” by providers, but best practice is to acknowledge the move as a “family experience.” Service providers are encouraged to actively support and maintain family involvement pre- and post-transition, and to help families negotiate the emotional and practical changes in their caring role^[4].

Typical Collaborative Practices

Conclusion

Care providers such as We Support Ltd., Leaf Care, and Catalyst Care Group publicly advertise and practice collaborative, co-caring approaches with families during the transition to supported living. These approaches are built on co-design, ongoing communication, and flexible, consent-based involvement, ensuring the transition is a shared, supportive process for both the person and their family^[2][3][1][4].

1. https://www.we-support.co.uk/approach/family-involvement/      
2. https://leafcare.co.uk/blog/the-transition-to-supported-living-what-to-expect-and-how-to-prepare/  
3. https://catalystgrp.co.uk/blog/the-transition-to-supported-living/ 
4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11969629/  

A local authority may also use its discretion to apply a property disregard in other circumstances. However, the local authority will need to balance this discretion with ensuring a person’s assets are not maintained at public expense. An example where it may be appropriate to apply the disregard is where it is the sole residence of someone who has given up their own home in order to care for the person who is now in a care home or is perhaps the elderly companion of the person.

Yes through the basic public law principle that any decision made affecting someone in an obviously important way must be rational, transparent, and evidence based. You can complain the Monitoring Officer or the ombudsman if you ask for an internal review and are refused the information.

Yes that is a fundamental principle of charging law. Their packages cannot be combined without their agreement and their charges and means cannot be combined.

If the Ombudsman triages a case out of investigation one can ask the Ombudsman for a reconsideration within a month, or bring judicial review proceedings against the Ombudsman, in theory.

The excuses they are offering up for not investigating at the moment are as follows:

It has discretion to decline to investigate or to discontinue an investigation if its staff conclude that

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

It means that the Ombudsman is not expected or authorised to look at the actual outcome of any decision that has been made by a council.

The ombudsman is like a judicial review court: a free supervisory body, looking out for errors of law and administration along the way to the decision being made. The grounds they’d be looking for would be ignoring clear law, failing to apply reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act, not having any thought about human rights in play in and about the decision, failing to follow the Guidance without any good reason, failing to actually do what is required by the Care Act within a reasonable time.

It is not true that they never work backwards from the decision, when the decision is bizarre or outrageous. They do just what judges do in that situation: they say that in order to come out with a decision as bad as this one, there must have been a mistake along the way. And then they find one.

You cannot be paid for being an employer.

You can be paid for the administration, because there’s a power to provide support to manage the direct payment, but it is not a duty.

If ‘we’ is a person’s nominated source of support to manage, then there is provision for the person being paid more in the Direct Payment for paying that person to do the managing, even if that is a person in their family and even if they are living in the same household. It is not a duty, but a council could be pushed to making that offer, if there is no other basis on which the admin support will do it unpaid.

There is no conflict of interest when a nominated helper who is also the employee of the person in need, being paid to administer the budget because they are only helping the person manage the direct payment and to manage the employees.

That is different if the admin support is an Authorised Person (i.e. someone who steps up where the person in need lacks capacity to hold the Direct Payment and the Authorised Person is also aiming to be a paid employee or paid worker.

With the employer. The relationship is one in ordinary civil law, whereas the relationship between the person and the local authority for the direct payment side is in public law.

If your needs have got greater, or your dependency has got greater because you have less informal care available it is hard for a council to make a lawful cut but it is not impossible, because it is lawful to cut a package if they can justify a professional opinion that there is a cheaper way to meet the need, even with the enlarged need.

They can also say that what they were providing was over-provision if they’re prepared to say they have been previously over-generous, despite professional opinion, last time round. They might also say that the market price of care has got smaller, though that is very unlikely at the moment.

If you are cognitively capacitous you cannot be forced into a care home, without it being an assault – but you cannot refuse and insist that the council still cares for you.

You are refusing a lawful offer of service, in theory – and that is your choice (you might be saying no because the offer is unlawful, and if so, you need to use judicial review, the Monitoring Officer or the complaints system and ombudsman).

They are spending public money and are not obliged to meet people’s insistence on care in a preferred setting. They are the decision makers subject to public law challenge about all manner of things they can cock up on a daily basis – overlooking human rights, wishes and feelings, needs, wellbeing, you name it.

If however – and this is likely – the council is not prepared to walk away in that situation for fear of the press attention when the person is left without care, however, that is THEIR choice, and if they make that choice, they are still bound by the Care Act and must offer the person the defensible lowest practicable minimum to meet the person’s real needs in the setting in which they are really going to have to be met.

No, they are YOUR personal assistants, and nobody can ‘get rid’ of them in place of you. But they can withdraw approval for your direct payment, and they can name a person on whom you are then prohibited from spending any of the direct payment, so you’d have to sack the person, or else keep them on privately. 

No, they are obliged to be transparent and rational and aware of your participation rights.

You have a right to correct the record – it’s called rectification

1. Right to Rectification:

• Under the UK GDPR, individuals have the right to have inaccurate personal data rectified, or completed if incomplete.
• This right is closely linked to the controller’s obligation to ensure data accuracy (Article 5(1)(d) of the UK GDPR).

2. How to Exercise the Right:

• Individuals can make a request for rectification verbally or in writing.
• They can ask for inaccuracies to be corrected or for incomplete data to be completed.

3. Responsibilities of the Controller:

• The organization holding the data (the “controller”) must rectify inaccurate data without undue delay, and at the latest within one calendar month.
• They must also respond to the request without delay.
• In some cases, a request for rectification may be refused, such as if it is unfounded or excessive.
• If the controller refuses a request for rectification, they must inform the individual of the basis for their decision and their right to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).