Brent Social Worker Advocates for Increased Care Hours for Autistic Man, But Council Implements Cuts Instead

A resident of North London has raised concerns regarding what he perceives as the unjust removal of weekend care support for his severely disabled and non-verbal brother. In an effort to prevent his brother from being placed in a care facility, the man returned to the family home to provide necessary assistance. Following an investigation conducted by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO), Brent Council has been mandated to issue an apology for its shortcomings and to compensate the individual—referred to in the LGO report as Mr X—£1,000 for the “avoidable distress” endured.

Mr X expressed that the situation has imposed a “huge strain” on him as he cares for his brother, referred to as Mr Y in the report, due to Mr Y’s “extensive care needs” and the potential risks posed to other family members during caregiving. Mr Y, who suffers from autism coupled with motor and sensory difficulties, poses a danger both to himself and to others, according to the findings of the LGO. He resides at home with his family, supported by a care package and an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP).

Challenges of Caregiving

Mr X informed the Ombudsman that his return to the family home was necessary to assist in caring for his brother, thereby avoiding the possibility of Mr Y being placed in a care setting. Since taking on this full-time responsibility, Mr X has indicated that the demands of care have significantly impacted him and his family. The care package, jointly funded by the Children’s Services Disability Team, originally provided 81 hours of support per week, including three nights and Sundays.

In May 2024, Mr Y’s care package underwent a review after Mr X communicated his need to return to full-time employment and requested additional care hours. During this review, Brent Council indicated that it was considering a day centre placement for Mr Y; however, this option was later deemed unsuitable by the centre. In early July, a social worker revisited Mr X and agreed that the care hours should be increased to 111 per week, considering Mr X’s employment intentions. Subsequently, the council’s 18 Plus Panel reviewed the care package and decided on an increase. However, this decision included a reduction of Sunday support hours from ten hours of one-to-one assistance and three hours of two-to-one assistance, along with a decrease in the weekly two-to-one support. Mr X raised concerns regarding this decision, which was communicated to him without a formal decision letter explaining the rationale.

Formal Complaints and Council Response

Following the reduction in care hours, Mr X lodged a formal complaint claiming that the changes were made without proper justification. A stage two complaints report was finalised in January 2025, affirming “most of his complaints” and outlining several recommendations. Brent Council accepted these recommendations, which included undertaking an immediate comprehensive risk assessment and reviewing the support plan, with a focus on Positive Behaviour Support, risk assessments, and any necessary training.

Despite these recommendations, in August 2025, Mr X alleged to the Ombudsman that the council had not acted on the agreed actions. He also sought reimbursement for the ten hours of lost support since July 2024, asserting that the hours were eliminated without due consideration. A new care plan was expected to be implemented by mid-March 2026; however, Mr X informed the Ombudsman that the council had failed to increase the care hours since July 2024. Instead, the council reportedly reallocated existing hours, reducing the one-to-one support during those times, rather than expanding the overall support hours. The council indicated that a review of the plan would take place in mid-May of this year, but Mr X claimed this review had yet to occur.

Ombudsman’s Findings and Council’s Commitment

The Ombudsman noted, “The failure to provide a decision letter after the 18 Plus Panel meeting in July 2024 has left Mr X unable to comprehend the rationale behind the reduction in two-to-one Sunday support, particularly when the social worker had recommended an increase in hours.” The Ombudsman concluded that delays in reviewing the case and establishing an interim plan constituted a fault that compounded the earlier identified issues, leading to further injustice for Mr Y, Mr X, and their family, necessitating Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman to ensure compliance by the council.

A spokesperson for Brent Council stated, “We accept the Ombudsman’s findings and apologise to the family for the shortcomings identified in this case. We recognise the impact this had on them and remain committed to learning from the issues raised. We have already taken steps to address the Ombudsman’s recommendations and are reviewing our processes to ensure families receive the support they are entitled to in a timely and effective manner.”