Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that he has been refused the opportunity to contribute to his daughter’s, Ms C’s support plan. This is because Ms C’s support plan now includes Mr B’s views and has been amended to reflect the inaccuracies. It is unlikely any further investigation by the Ombudsman could achieve any more than this.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council refused to consult him about his daughter’s Ms C’s support plan and completed a plan which did not meet her support needs. Mr B says this is contrary to guidance set out in the Care Act 2014 which says family members should be consulted and included in its production.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I discussed the concerns with Mr B and considered the information and documentation he and the Council provided. I sent Mr B a copy of my draft decision for comment.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B complained to the Council in September about the content of Ms B’s support plan and some of the wording in it. The Council responded and explained the Social Worker completing the assessment was off work and due back in October. It said when she returns it will arrange to meet with Mr B and go through the assessment with him and make any amendments necessary. The Council met with Mr B and amended Ms C’s support plan accordingly.
5. Mr B says he has only recently been allowed to contribute to the support plan and says he has refused to sign it because he is unhappy with some of the wording which reads more like a contract rather than a support plan.
6. The Care Act 2014 says:

10.2 The person must be genuinely involved and influential throughout the planning process, and should be given every opportunity to take joint ownership of the development of the plan with the local authority if they wish, and the local authority agrees. There should be a default assumption that the person, with support if necessary, will play a strong pro-active role in planning if they choose to. Indeed, it should be made clear that the plan ‘belongs’ to the person it is intended for, with the local authority role being to ensure the production and sign-off of the plan to ensure that it is appropriate to meet the identified needs.

7. Mr B says he has refused to sign the plan because the last sentence reads more like a contract than a support plan and says as Ms C’s representative he should have been consulted. The Care Act supports Mr B’s view. However, he has confirmed he has now had the opportunity to include his views and influence the content of the support plan which has been amended to reflect the wording he was unhappy with. It is unlikely any further investigation by the Ombudsman could achieve any more than this.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely any further investigation by the Ombudsman could achieve any more than this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman