A North London man complained that his council “wrongly removed” weekend care support from his severely disabled and non-verbal brother. The man had already had to move back into the family home to look after his autistic brother to prevent him from being put in a care home.
Following an investigation by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO), Brent Council has been ordered to apologise for its failings in the matter and pay the man – referred to in the LGO report as Mr X – £1,000 for the “avoidable distress” caused.
Mr X described the “huge strain” it had put on him caring for his brother – referred to in the report as Mr Y – due to his “extensive care needs” and it being unsafe for other members of the family to provide care. Mr Y has autism with motor and sensory difficulties, meaning he can be a threat to himself and to others, according to the LGO.
Mr Y lives at home with his family, where he is supported by a care package and an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). Mr X told the Ombudsman that he had to return to live with his family to help care for his brother; otherwise, there was a chance of him having to be put in a care home. Mr X has since had the full-time responsibility for Mr Y, which he said has put “a significant strain on him and his family”, according to the report.
A jointly funded health and social care package from the Children’s Services Disability Team supported Mr Y in the community, consisting of 81 hours of care per week – which included three nights and on Sundays. In May 2024, Mr Y’s care package was reviewed after Mr X explained to the social worker that he needed to return to work full time and the family were requesting more care hours.
At the review, Brent Council said that it was looking at a day centre for Mr Y; however, the centre later said it could not meet his needs. In early July, the social worker again visited Mr X and supported an increase in the care hours to 111 hours a week because of his intention to work full time, the LGO report adds.
Later that month, the council’s 18 Plus Panel considered the care package and determined that it should be increased. However, the Sunday hours were reduced from 10 hours of one-to-one support and three hours of two-to-one support, as well as a reduction in the weekly two-to-one support. Mr X “was worried about this” and received no decision letter explaining the panel’s decision.
Mr X submitted a formal complaint about the reduction in care hours, claiming they were “just sprung on him” and he was given no rationale for the decision. A stage two complaints report was completed in January, 2025, which upheld “most of his complaints” and set out a number of recommendations, according to the LGO.
Brent Council accepted the recommendations of the review, which included that it should, as soon as possible, undertake a thorough risk assessment and review the support plan – with an emphasis on Positive Behaviour Support, risk assessments and any training needs.
However, in August 2025, Mr X complained to the Ombudsman that the council had not implemented the suggested actions. He also wanted to be compensated for the loss of the 10 hours of support since July, 2024, at a cost of £20 an hour, on the basis that it was “removed without proper consideration or rationale”.
Following the review, a new care plan was scheduled to start in mid-March, 2026, but Mr X told the Ombudsman that the council had still failed to increase the care hours since July 2024. Instead, the council had “rearranged the existing hours while reducing the one-to-one support during these times” – meaning it was a reallocation rather than an increase in the hours.
The council said that the plan would be reviewed in mid-May of this year, but Mr X claims this “still has not happened”.
The Ombudsman stated: “The failure to provide a decision letter, after the 18 Plus Panel meeting of July 2024, has meant that Mr X cannot understand the rationale for the reduction in the 2:1 Sunday support, particularly when the social worker was recommending an increase in hours. Since making his complaint, Mr X remains none the wiser about the rationale for the 18 Plus Panel’s decision of July 2024.
“I find the delay in reviewing the case and having an interim plan amounts to fault and this has compounded the faults identified in the earlier statutory investigation. This additional fault would also have compounded the injustice to Mr Y, Mr X and his family and has required Mr X to complain to the Ombudsman to ensure the council carried out the action it had agreed to.”
A Brent Council spokesperson said: “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 help ensure families receive the support they are entitled to in a timely and effective way.”
Many said it was “disgraceful” that Brent cut hours when the social worker recommended more, calling it another example of councils “balancing budgets on the backs of disabled people”, and people voiced deep compassion for the brother who had to give up work, saying the situation was “heartbreaking” and “unfair beyond words”.
Many widened the debate, saying this is “happening everywhere”, with councils “cutting first, assessing later”.
Some said the LGO was “the only body holding councils to account”, though others felt the £1,000 compensation was “insultingly small”.
People are saying it’s wicked to trim care for a non‑verbal autistic man who needs two‑to‑one support, pointing out that this is what happens when councils are broke and disabled people pay the price, that social workers do their job only for panels to override them to save money, and that £1,000 doesn’t even begin to cover the stress this family endured.
Public sentiment echoes outrage at Brent Council for disregarding its own social worker, sympathy for the family forced into crisis, profound mistrust of indistinct care‑panel judgments, a feeling of despair about chronic underfunding, and frustration that Ombudsman rulings seldom lead to significant structural transformation, all merging into a panorama of a system people no longer feel can protect the most vulnerable.
THE MONTHLY MOSQUITO 