Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in the Council implementing an extra hour of care and support for Mr X’s mother-in-law. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about delay in the Council implementing an extra hour of care and support for his mother-in-law. He says the delay meant he was severely restricted in what he could do as he could not leave her alone.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• investigation would not lead to a different findings or outcomes.

(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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X first requested the extra hour of care for his mother-in-law, Mrs A, in September 2022. The Council agreed the request in principle in November 2022. However, the Council said the overall package needed additional approval, which was given in December 2022.
6. The Council said it needed to put the care package to market as the current provider’s hourly rate was outside of the Council’s framework. The Council said it needed to ensure it was spending public money appropriately by using the most cost-effective options available in the market. The Council also completed a risk assessment to consider what risks there were to Mrs A in a change in agency. The assessment did not identify any risks which could not be effectively managed and/or mitigated.
7. The extra hour of care was implemented in February 2023. The council agreed for the existing care agency to provide the care while it completed its review of Mrs A’s care and support needs.
8. During its complaint investigation, the Council accepted there was a delay in implementing the extra call between September 2022 and February 2023. The Council offered Mr X £250 to recognise the injustice caused by the delay.
9. An investigation is not justified as it would not lead to any different findings or outcomes. The Council has already accepted it delayed in implementing the extra care.
10. I have considered whether any further remedy would be appropriate in the circumstances. I note Mr X has mitigated the injustice that would have been caused to Mrs A. This is because he ensured he was available to provide the care to Mrs A if needed. Therefore, the injustice is to Mr X.
11. The Ombudsman’s approach to remedying injustice is to try and put the person affected back in the position they would have been, if not for the fault. I am satisfied it is not possible to do this in Mr X’s case. Where we cannot put a person back in the position they would have been, we can consider recommending a symbolic financial payment of between £100-300. Therefore, the Council’s offer is in line with our guidance.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman