Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to stop her adult social care (ASC) direct payments. She said because of this she had had to self-fund her care for over two years. She said the Council based its decision on false information. She said this had resulted in her owing her carers money. She wants the Council to reinstate her direct payments.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council stopped her direct payments. In the Council’s complaint response, it confirmed it had managed Mrs X’s direct payments for her because of previous mismanagement. It said it had not stopped the direct payments, but that Mrs X had not provided details to allow it to pay her carers, as she wanted to self-manage the payments. The Council said it had offered to commission Mrs X’s care as an alternative, but she had refused.
7. The Council cannot make the direct payments without the carer’s details. It has set out its reasons for not allowing Mrs X to manage her direct payments. Additionally, it has offered to commission care for Mrs X. If Mrs X has been self-funding her care, that is her choice. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
8. Alongside the disagreement about the direct payments, the Council received information about Mrs X that indicated that her care needs had changed. The Council started a review of her care needs. It took the Council over twelve months to complete the review. The Council decided Mrs X did not have eligible care needs as:
• she had provided no evidence that she had been reliant on carers for the previous twelve months, and
• that evidence from professionals indicated she did not have care needs.
9. Section 27 of the Care Act 2014 says councils should keep care and support plans under review. Therefore, we would not be critical of the Council reviewing Mrs X’s care plan after it received information her care needs had changed. Although there was a delay in the Council completing the review, there is nothing to suggest that was through the fault of the Council.
10. In deciding that Mrs X did not have eligible care needs, the Council took account of information from Mrs X, other professionals and the relevant guidance. The Council followed the correct process in making its decision. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman