Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a social worker refusing to complete a reassessment of Mr X’s care needs after a change in his circumstances and about problems with his direct payments. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains his social worker refused to complete a reassessment of his care needs after a change in his circumstances. He also complains about problems with his direct payments.

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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• investigation would not lead to 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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X had eligible care and support needs. He received care and support of 23 hours per week, and this was met through a direct payment.
6. Mid December 2022, Mr X’s circumstances changed, and his support worker made a referral for an increase in care support for Mr X.
7. The social worker contacted Mr X the day after the referral to discuss the request for an increase in care. The social worker agreed to a temporary increase of seven hours per week, and agreed that the hours used to pay for Mr X to attend his clubs (which would not be open over the Christmas and new year period) could be used to commission additional support as well. Records showed Mr X accepted this and agreed to make it work while he waited for a reassessment.
8. The Council completed a reassessment for Mr X in January 2023. This led to an increase in care hours to 33 hours a week.
9. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. This is because there is no evidence the Council refused to complete a reassessment. Instead, this had been arranged for January 2023. Further, the Council did arrange for Mr X to have additional care while he waited for the reassessment to be completed. The evidence suggests the additional temporary hours agreed likely brought Mr X’s total care hours close to the 33 hours Mr X was eventually assessed as requiring.
10. With regards to the problems Mr X had with his direct payments, the Council has accepted there was an issue. The Council noted due to changing payment providers, the direct payment funds were not correctly transferred to Mr X’s account. The Council has apologised for this and said it offered to pay Mr X’s care provider directly at the time.
11. An investigation is not warranted on this point as it would not lead to any different findings or outcomes. The Council took appropriate action at the time to rectify the impact caused by the fault. I do not consider any further remedy is necessary in the circumstances.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman