Summary: Mr & Mrs X complain the Council is failing to meet their needs as carers for their two children. The Council accepts it did not give Mrs X four weeks’ notice before reducing her carer’s personal budget. The Council needs to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X for the distress this caused. The Council was not at fault over the way it assessed Mr & Mrs X’s needs as carers. It has been open to them to work with the Council to agree support plans which meet their needs.

The complaint

1. The complainants, Mr & Mrs X, complain the Council is failing to meet their needs as carers for their two children.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have investigated events since 2022. I have not investigated events before 2022 because of the restriction in paragraph 4 above. The Council respond to a complaint from Mr X in October 2021 and told him he could complain to the Ombudsman. Mr X did not do that but instead commissioned a solicitor to write to the Council on his behalf. The Solicitor wrote to the Council in December 2021, after which there were further exchanges of correspondence. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in November 2023, after the Council responded to a further complaint of his in October 2023. I have exercised the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate events from 2022. However, I am satisfied that the complaint about events before 2022 are a late complaint and that it had been open to Mr X to complain to the Ombudsman within 12 months of those events, but he chose not to and to purse his concerns via a solicitor.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• discussed the complaint with Mr X;
• considered the comments and documents the Council has provided in response to my enquiries;
• considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies; and
• invited comments on a draft of this statement from Mr X and the Council, for me to consider before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. Mr & Mrs X have two sons, Mr P and Mr Q, both of whom have eligible needs for care and support under the Care Act 2014. The parents care for both sons. Mr X has been appointed by the Court of Protection as Mr P’s deputy for health and welfare, and finances.

Mrs X

7. Mrs X’s April 2020 carer’s assessment identified her as the main carer for Mr Q but noted both parents cared for both sons. The assessment said Mrs X’s caring role had:
• A significant impact on:
1. Providing care for other persons for whom the carer provides care
2. Maintaining a habitable home
• A very significant impact on:
1. Developing and maintaining family or other significant personal relationships
2. Making use of necessary facilities or services in the community
3. Engaging in recreational activities
8. The Council continued to provide her with a personal budget of £76.26 a week. It said the money could be used to:
• maintain a habitable home (gardening and household maintenance)
• pay for recreational activities of her choice
• spend time with Mr X to help sustain their relationship (including meals for them both and other recreational activities such as going to the cinema)
• pay for therapies to assist with physical wellbeing
9. The Council reassessed Mrs X in July 2023. The assessment said:
• Mrs X’s caring responsibilities (for Mr Q) did not impact on the care she provided for others (Mr P)
• The family struggled to pay heating bills due to the higher costs arising from having a son with significant disabilities (Mr P)
• Mrs X could manage food shopping and preparing meals for herself and the family
• Mrs X had little time away from her caring role, which made it difficult to develop and maintain family relationships
• Mrs X could not take part in work, training, education or volunteering as much as she wanted because of her caring role
• Mrs X was unable to access facilities in the community
• Mrs X no longer provided daily support to Mr Q since he went to university (but spoke to him daily to provide prompts), so had more time to maintain relationships with family and friends
• Mrs X supported Mr Q roughly every three weeks, when she visited him
• Mr P did not need a second carer but required additional support when travelling to unknown places and when attending medical appointments, as he became distressed
10. The assessment said Mrs X’s caring role had a significant impact on:
• Providing care for other persons for whom the carer provides care
• Maintaining a habitable home
• Managing and maintaining nutrition
• Developing and maintaining family or other significant personal relationships
• Engaging in recreational activities
11. The assessment went on to explain that because Mrs X was providing less support for Mr Q, she had the opportunity to develop relationships. It noted that Mr X’s caring role for Mr P may affect the time Mrs X could spend with him. However, it noted respite had been offered for Mr P but declined. The Council referred Mrs X to a warm homes scheme over the high energy costs. It also said the personal budget could no longer be used to pay for property repairs and maintenance. The Council gave Mrs X a personal budget of £12.71 a week for the cost of therapies to assist with her physical and emotional wellbeing, and engage in recreational activities of her choice.

Mr X

12. Mr X’s October 2020 carer’s support plan identified him as the main carer for Mr P, but noted he also provided care for Mr Q. Mr X said he spent over 16 hours a day supporting Mr P. He said he had little time away from his caring role. The plan said:
• Mr X’s caring responsibility did not impact on the care provided to others
• Mr X could manage food shopping and preparing meal for himself and his family
• Mr X had little time away from his caring role, so it was difficult to develop and maintain family relationships
• Mr X had to retire early to care for Mr P
• It was difficult for Mr X to engage in community/recreational activities. His parents were anxious about leaving Mr P with other people because of past experiences.
• Accessing social groups and local facilities was difficult for Mr X. He either had to take Mr P with him or plan activities for when Mr P was at day services two days a week.
13. The plan provided for a personal budget of £76.26 a week to:
• Maintain a habitable home (gardening and household maintenance)
• Spend time with Mrs X to help sustain their relationship
• Take advantage of therapies to assist with his physical wellbeing
• Engage in recreational activities
14. The Council reassessed Mr X’s needs as Mr P’s carer in October 2022. The assessment said Mr P needed help with:
• Dressing, washing and bathing
• Preparing food and eating
• Household tasks
• Helping him travel
• Helping him get out and about
• Keep him company
• Checking he was alright
• Listening and offering emotional support
• Managing medication
• Dealing with paperwork/correspondence
15. The Council decided to leave Mr X’s personal budget in place at £76.26 a week. However, it said it was not appropriate to continue using it to fund housing maintenance and repairs. It referred Mr X to the Citizen’s Advice Bureau about the need for a power shower. It referred him to a warm homes scheme for advice on managing high utility bills. It noted Mr & Mrs X had both received the same funds for the same repairs on the same property. It recommended providing the personal budget via a direct payment card so the Council could monitor expenditure. If Mr X turned this down, the Council said Mr X would have to provide information on how the money was spent on a weekly basis. It said Mr X would have to reimburse the Council if he did not account for the expenditure. It said Mr X would have to complete a new direct payment agreement.
16. The care and support plan confirmed the Council would pay £76.26 a week:
• To maintain a habitable home (gardening and household maintenance)
• To spend time with Mrs X to help sustain their relationship
• To take advantage of therapies to help with his physical wellbeing
• Engage in recreational activities

The complaints

17. Mrs & Mrs X complained to the Council in August about the assessment of their needs. The Complaint also related to the assessments of their two sons and changes to their personal budgets..
18. When the Council replied to Mr X’s complaint in October 2023, it said:
• The evidence showed Mr Q’s needs had reduced due to his increased independence, which had implications for Mrs X’s role as his carer
• It had made no changes to Mr X’s carer’s personal budget
• Under its Direct Payment Policy, they could not be used to buy food, but between April 2020 and April 2022, Mr X had used his personal budget to buy takeaways
• On 4 July 2023, the social worker had invited Mr & Mrs X to get in contact if they wanted to discuss their reviews, but they did not respond
• The social worker contacted Mr & Mrs X by phone and e-mail on 5 September offering to review their assessments (and those of other members of the family), but Mrs X declined the offer.
• It needed to audit the use of the direct payments at least every year. It did not consider Mr X’s personal budget analysis to be enough for that purpose.
• They should retain receipts for an expenditure from their carers’ direct payment accounts since April 2023.
• It had failed to give them four weeks’ notice of changes to their carers’ personal budgets, having reduced them on 10 July after notifying them of the changes on 4 July. It would remedy this by reimbursing the amounts owed up to 6 August into their direct payment accounts.
19. When the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in November 2023, it said:
• It had offered to commission an independent social worker to assess the whole family’s needs. But, as Mr X had rejected all the people offered, it would now assign one of its own social workers to reassess the family’s needs.
• The social worker would review Mrs X’s receipts for her expenditure from her carer’s personal budget since April 2023. It may also need to review Mrs X’s carer’s needs, depending on the outcome of the review of Mr Q’s needs.
• The social worker would review Mr X’s receipts for his expenditure from his carer’s personal budget since April 2023.

Is there evidence of fault by the Council which caused injustice?

20. Although I have not investigated historic events, it is clear there are longstanding disputes between Mr X and Mrs X, and the Council. The correspondence I have seen shows relations are strained. Mr X & Mrs X first used a solicitor to pursue their concerns. They then employed an independent advocate to support them with their contact with the Council. The advocate acted as an intermediary and attended meetings with the Council and the family. Mr X says the Council should recompense them for the costs they incurred. There are no grounds for me to recommend this, as it was Mr & Mrs X’s decision to use a solicitor and an advocate. That they did not deliver the outcomes they had hoped for, does not mean the Council should cover the cost.
21. The Council accepts it failed to give four weeks’ notice of the changes to Mr & Mrs X’s personal budgets. With regard to Mr X, this appears to have been an error, as it made no change to his personal budget. However, the decision to backdate the payments did not necessarily remedy the injustice caused to Mrs X, as she will not have known that she could continue spending at the higher rate during the three weeks for which no notice was given. While it is not possible to quantify the financial impact this may have had on Mrs X, the Council needs to apologise and make a symbolic payment for the distress caused.
22. The Council was not at fault over the way it assessed Mr & Mrs X’s needs as carers for their two children. The Council accepts Mr X plays a significant role in caring for their son Mr P and has provided him with a carer’s budget to reflect that. The Council reduced Mrs X’s carer’s personal budget to reflect Mr Q’s increased independence following his move to university. He has now returned home, so a further review of Mrs X’s carer’s support plan is necessary (after first reviewing Mr Q’s needs).
23. There are some inconsistencies in the carers’ support plans. They still refer to household maintenance, despite the Council saying this is no longer something they should be used for. It is also unclear how Mr & Mrs X could use their personal budgets to spend time together when Mr P is no longer attending day services, cannot be left alone and Mr & Mrs X have not accepted respite support.
24. However, the Council has been open to reviewing Mr & Mrs X’s carers’ support plans, but they have not wanted to engage with the Council. Had they done so, the inconsistencies could have been addressed. Mr X says they want the Council to leave them alone. But if they want to continue receiving public money from the Council, that is not a realistic expectation. Under the Care & Support Statutory Guidance, the Council needs to review carers’ support plans at least every 12 months, or when there is a change in need. Reviews are therefore now overdue, but not due to fault by the Council. The Council is entitled to review the use of direct payments and to expect Mr & Mrs X to keep receipts for their expenditure.
25. The Council offered to commission an independent social worker to review Mr & Mrs X’s needs as carers. It has since withdrawn that offer as Mr X would not accept any of the social workers offered. That was not fault by the Council. The Council made the offer in the hope it would help move things forward. When that failed to happen, it was entitled to withdraw the offer. Ultimately, it is the Council’s responsibility to assess people’s needs and ensure any eligible needs are met.

Back to top

Agreed action

26. I recommended the Council:
• Within four weeks of my final decision, sends Mrs X a written apology for the failure to give four weeks’ notice before reducing her carer’s personal budget and pays her £150 for the distress caused.
27. The Council has agreed to do this. It should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation on the basis there has been fault by the Council causing injustice which requires a remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman