Summary: Mr C complained on behalf of Mr D about the actions of the Council in respect of providing care and support to Mr D. We cannot investigate the complaint because Mr C and Mr D have issued civil claims in the County Court.

The complaint

1. Mr C complained on behalf of his partner, Mr D, that Brighton and Hove City Council (the Council), in respect of D’s care needs:
• failed to carry out a proper assessment of Mr D’s needs or provide any care from May to November 2021;
• failed to carry out an accurate financial assessment: specifically the Council has miscalculated Mr D’s income and failed to properly assess his disability related expenditure;
• accused Mr C of controlling Mr D and preventing access to social workers when they had previously invited the social worker to their home but she cancelled. It has also demanded unreasonable information about Mr C’s movements and threatened Mr D with a deprivation of liberty assessment. Mr C considers this behaviour amounts to bullying and harassment;
• failed to allow Mr C to receive direct payments for caring for Mr D; and
• failed to properly investigate or respond to their complaints.
2. Mr D has been deprived of care and both he and Mr C have been caused significant distress and time and trouble for a prolonged period.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The courts have said that where someone has used their right of appeal, reference or review or remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr C and the Council.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr C and Mr D moved to Brighton in May 2021. Mr D has care and support needs and had previously been receiving 15 hours of support from personal assistants via direct payments (rather than commissioning care itself, the Council makes payments directly to the service-user so they can employ their own support).
6. The Council completed a care act assessment and carers assessment at the end of May 2021, recommending 20 hours per week of support by direct payments. Mr C and Mr D were unhappy with the assessment and the Council failed to set up the direct payments, so Mr D was without care.
7. In September 2021 the Council allocated a new social worker to the case. They reviewed the assessment and in October/November 2021 created a new support plan increasing the support hours to 20 per week
8. The Council arranged care for three days a week via an agency (from early October 2021) as Mr C and Mr D were struggling to find suitable personal assistants. The Council also agreed to make two payments to Mr C for caring for Mr D during this period and paid over £4000 in direct payments for the period from June to September 2021.
9. In December 2021 personal assistants started three days a week, increasing to five by January 2022. The Council included rehabilitative gym membership and swimming support for Mr D with transport. It also included holiday support and respite care.
10. Mr C disputed the assessment and asked the Council to make direct payments to him as Mr D’s carer. The Council said it was unable to do this as Mr C is Mr D’s partner.
11. In January 2022 the Council completed a further review including in principle further support hours to enable Mr C to return to work. It also included gym membership and payment for a creative course for Mr C.
12. In March 2022, following contact from Mr C’s GP the Council agreed to implement the support hours to relieve pressure on Mr C. Mr C also challenged the financial assessment, specifically the calculation of the disability-related expenditure.
13. In April 2022 the Council’s legal team replied to Mr C’s communications.
14. In May 2022 Mr C and Mr D instructed solicitors and made a formal complaint. The Council agreed to review the financial assessment and said it needed to review Mr D’s care plan. Mr C disagreed and said it was unnecessary.
15. In early July 2022 Mr C said he was forced to leave the house by a social worker so they could talk to Mr D. Mr D had a medical incident. Mr C said he warned this would happen.
16. In August 2022 the Council started a review and a revised support plan is being finalised. The Council said it had offered Mr D £1000 in recognition of the delays in providing support and £2500 to Mr C to recognise the delays and the additional strain this placed on him in his caring role.
17. Mr C and Mr D declined these payments and issued four claims in the county court in August 2022 for damages including distress and loss of earnings from June 2021 to date.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We cannot investigate the complaint because the issues complained about are being considered by the County Court in four civil claims. This means the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate. I have ended the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman