Council to review use of approval panels for packages of adult social care after Ombudsman finds “undue emphasis” put on cost and funding arrangements

June 2, 2025

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) has found fault with how Croydon Council assessed a man’s needs and how it planned his care and support, finding that the authority’s approval panel was focused “solely” on the costs of the man’s care, not on how best to meet his needs.

In the report, the Ombudsman emphasised that councils should not create or use panels that “seek to amend planning decisions, micro-manage the planning process or are in place purely for financial reasons”.

It called on Croydon to appoint a senior officer to review its practices around the use of approval panels for packages of adult social care.

The woman behind the complaint, Mrs X, complained to the Ombudsman about how the London borough proposed to move her husband, Mr X, to a different care home since 2023.

She said the council:

failed to give her and Mr X a copy of its assessment of Mr X’s needs or the care and support plan it produced him;
failed to produce a personal budget for Mr X which met the true costs of his care or to explain how it decided on the amount it did;
tried to move Mr X to different care homes, against the advice of his social worker and which could not meet his needs, based only on the costs for his current care home;
failed to reassess Mr X’s care and support needs when Mrs X asked it to in late 2023; and
failed to ensure Mr X’s welfare was at the centre of the council’s decision-making.

Considering the facts of the case, the Ombudsman observed delays in the council’s assessment of Mr X’s needs and planning of his care.

The report noted: “Mrs X asked the council to assess Mr X’s needs in early January 2023. However, it did not complete this assessment and decide whether Mr X had eligible needs until late April 2023, around four months later. […] That delay was fault.”

The Ombudsman continued: “The council did not then complete planning Mr X’s care until June 2024, when it confirmed his placement at the care home was permanent. That was over 12 months since it began planning Mr X’s care. I am satisfied that was significantly longer than it should have taken and was fault.”

The investigation also highlighted an “undue emphasis” on cost and funding arrangements by the council.

The Ombudsman said: “Throughout the care planning process, including during the council’s [approval] panel meetings, the only issue the council focused on was cost. Managers overrode the social worker’s recommendations and repeatedly referred to the costs of Mr X’s care home as too expensive. They did this without any information about alternative care home placements or whether these could meet Mr X’s complex needs.”

While acknowledging it is “appropriate” that councils should seek the best value and ensure they spend public money effectively, the Ombudsman said this “must not be at the expense of person-centred care planning or promoting the welfare of individuals”.

On the use of approval panels, the Ombudsman noted that although approval panels can be an “appropriate mechanism” to sign-off large or unique personal budgets or care plans, councils should not create or use panels that are in place “purely for financial reasons”.

The report also highlighted a failure by Croydon to follow the rules around third party top-ups, a failure to consider reassessing Mr X’s needs in light further medical evidence in late 2023, a failure to share copies of its assessments and Mr X’s care and support plan with both him and Mrs X, and a failure to set a “sufficient” personal budget.

The report concluded: “The council’s planning of Mr X’s care needs was not person-centred and did not put Mr X’s wellbeing at the forefront of its decision making. There is extensive evidence in the council’s records that its focus was on reducing the cost to it of Mr X’s care, not on how best to meet his needs or on supporting Mr X to make his own choices.”

To remedy the injustice caused, the Ombudsman recommended the council:

revise the personal budget for Mr X to reflect the actual cost of his ongoing care, as agreed by the Council in June 2024;
issue an amended care and support plan to Mr and Mrs X;
offer Mr and Mrs X a reassessment of Mr X’s needs;
apologise to Mr and Mrs X for the worry, distress and upset; and
pay a total of £1,500 to Mr and Mrs X.

Further, within three months of the Ombudsman’s decision, the council was urged to review its policy and practices around its use of approval panels for packages of adult social care, and arrange training for all relevant adult social care staff (including managers) on the principles of person-centred care planning.

The Ombudsman said the review should:

be undertaken by a senior council officer;
ensure the council’s policy, panel terms of reference and practices comply with the law and statutory guidance, including an emphasis on individual wellbeing and person-centred care planning, rather than financial considerations.

A Croydon Council spokesperson said: "We want to provide timely needs assessment and care and support planning and decision for all our residents, and we are really sorry that on this occasion the support was unsatisfactory. We have apologised to Mr and Mrs X and compensated them for the worry and distress this has caused. We accept the findings of the Ombudsman report, and the learning, and we are reviewing our processes around care assessments and care plans, to prevent this happening in the future."

Lottie Winson