Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care package arranged by the Council for Mrs X’s aunt. Mrs X says the council arranged for her aunt to receive double handed care which was not necessary. She feels her aunt should not have to pay for care that was unnecessary. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the care package that was arranged for her aunt. She says the Council arranged for her aunt to receive double handed care when this wasn’t necessary. She also disputes the care charges as she feels her aunt should not have to pay for care that was unnecessary.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X’s aunt, Mrs A, was discharged from hospital in December 2022. Mrs A was assessed as requiring a care package consisting of four calls a day, with two carers.
6. The Council’s social worker also completed an assessment which confirmed Mrs A required two carers to attend during her care calls. The assessment also confirmed Mrs A’s husband was informed Mrs A would be charged for her care and that a financial assessment would take place to work out how much she needed to pay.
7. In January 2022, Mrs X told the Council she felt only one carer was required. The Council sought the view of the care provider, who felt two carers were needed. Due to the conflicting evidence, the Council arranged for an Occupational Therapy assessment.
8. The occupational therapist (OT) visited in February 2023 to complete an assessment. The OT recommended equipment for Mrs A to help support her.
9. At the beginning of March 2023, the OT revisited Mrs A once the equipment was installed. The OT was satisfied Mrs A could safely transfer and mobilise with one carer.
10. While I appreciate Mrs X had an opposing view as to her aunt’s care needs, we are unlikely to find fault with the Council as it took appropriate action to ensure Mrs A’s care and support needs were assessed. As Mrs A was assessed as requiring two carers, it was appropriate for the Council to put in place a care package that met the assessed need. The Council is entitled, under the Care Act 2014, to charge Mrs A for the care and support services she received.
11. When the Council was aware of the conflicting views on whether Mrs A needed two carers, it appropriately referred the case to the OT. The Council could not have just reduced the care package without a reassessment as this would not have been safe for Mrs A. Once it was assessed as safe to reduce the care package to one carer, the Council did this without delay.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman