Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how best to meet adult social care needs. The complainant and Council are in dispute over suitable accommodation. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council is failing to meet her relative, Ms C’s, adult social care needs, because the residential home offered is an unsuitable location. Ms C wants to stay at her current care home, but to do so her family would have to pay a top-up.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, 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))

4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
7. I considered the Care Act 2014 and associated statutory guidance.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms C arranged and funded her stay at care home X. When her funds were nearing the upper capital limit, she contacted the Council. The Council must then assess Ms C’s care and support needs and assess how much, if anything, Ms C can pay toward her care. The Council must provide Ms C with a personal budget, which is the amount of money needed to meet her eligible social care needs. The Council must decide how best to meet Ms C’s care and support needs within its budgetary responsibilities for meeting the needs of the entire population of its area.
9. The Council must offer at least one available and suitable option within Ms C’s personal budget. Ms C can choose another option, but if it is more expensive than her personal budget a third party will need to top-up the extra cost.
10. The Council has offered care home Y, which it says meets Ms C’s needs and is within her personal budget. Ms B argues care home Y is unsuitable because Ms C likes to go out in the community, and to do so would involve pushing her wheelchair down a country lane with no pavement. Ms C’s relatives do not drive.
11. The Council has considered Ms B’s arguments by a panel of relevant professionals. The Council has decided care home Y is within the relevant area for Ms C’s family to visit her and is within a reasonable distance of the town centre for her to access the community. The Council is satisfied care home Y is a suitable option to meet Ms C’s eligible needs. The Council has no duty to meet Ms C’s preferences or ‘wants’.
12. There is not any evidence of fault in the process the Council followed to make its decision. The Council’s actions are in line with relevant law and guidance. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot question or criticise the decision, even though Ms B strongly disagrees with it.
13. The Council has negotiated with care home X to reduce its price, but it does not come within Ms C’s personal budget. Ms C can choose to stay at care home X, but a third party would need to pay a top-up.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman