3.1 A lawful assessment
3.2 Reasons and the personal budget
A conclusion must be reasoned enough to show the path from assessed need to provision. A bare allocation of ten hours does not answer why risks outside those hours are met. Conversely, disagreement with the outcome does not itself prove unlawfulness. The record should identify each need, the proposed response, frequency, duration, contingency, responsible service and budget assumption.
| Exam problem Suppose the authority accepts night-time flashbacks and fainting but funds daytime visits only. The claimant should ask whether the night need was found ineligible, found met by another service, treated as preventable by equipment, or omitted. Each answer raises a different legal and evidential issue. |
|---|
3.3 Review versus fresh assessment
A material change, newly documented risk, repeated failure of the present plan, withdrawal of informal help, or new clinical evidence may justify review and reassessment. The request should identify the change and the precise defect in the current plan rather than merely repeat the desired total.
Every proposed substitute should be tested. For technology: can it be activated during speech loss or unconsciousness, who receives the alert, and what is the response time? For informal care: has the named person agreed, and what are their limits? For an on-call service: what happens when staff are occupied? A label such as “family support” or “telecare” is not a completed contingency plan.