Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to source a personal assistant for her son, Mr Z, and miscalculated his financial contributions towards his support. We could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation or achieve a different outcome. The Council was at fault when it wrongly told Mr Z it would waive some of his financial contributions. However, Mr Z has been assessed as able to afford his contributions and so any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about several aspects of her son, Mr Z’s, care package. Specifically, she says he has been without a personal assistant for over a year, his financial contributions are too much, the Council said it would waive them but then changed its mind and it failed to provide her with her annual carer’s assessment.
2. Mrs X says her mental health has been affected and she cannot afford to pay for a personal assistant for Mr Z. She has told the Council she is planning to cancel Mr Z’s direct payments.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Z receives direct payments. These allow him to purchase his own social care.
7. Mrs X complained to the Council about the matters in paragraph 1. The Council responded and made the following points:
• because Mr Z received direct payments it was his responsibility to find and fund his care, including his personal assistant. The Council had offered support through outreach services several times over the last two years which Mr Z had refused;
• Mr Z’s previous social worker was wrong to have told Mrs X and Mr Z that the Council would waive his financial contributions. Mr Z’s income had been assessed by the Council and his contribution was affordable. Therefore, he should pay them;
• it was Mr Z’s right, or Mrs X’s on his behalf, to cancel the direct payment arrangement if they wished;
• the Council did not carry out carer’s assessments annually. Instead, it would do so if circumstances changed.
8. We will not investigate this complaint. Although the Council was at fault for telling Mrs X and Mr Z it would waive Mr Z’s financial contribution, it has now explained why it would not do so. Because Mr Z can afford his contribution, this did not cause him any significant injustice. And in relation to the other matters Mrs X complains about, it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything different to previous one. Because Mr Z receives direct payments, it is his responsibility and not the Council’s to source the support he is eligible to receive. And if Mrs Z believes her circumstances as a carer have changed, she can ask the Council for an updated assessment.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because although there was one element of fault, any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. And in relation to the other complaints, we could not add to the previous investigation by the organisation or achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman