Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council reviewed a care needs assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained on behalf of her relative, Mr Y. She said the Council had reduced Mr Y’s care package following a review of his care needs. She wants the Council to reinstate the previous care package. She also wants the Council to agree to direct payment so Mr X can arrange his own care.

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 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(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. The Council completed a review of Mr X’s care needs over a period of several months. It used a range of sources to complete that assessment including speaking to Mr Y, feedback from Mr Y’s GP, Occupational Therapy, and other health professionals. It also reviewed Mr Y’s care records. The assessment identified Mr Y’s care needs had changed and as a result he required less support. The assessment set out the reasons for that decision.
7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we cannot overturn the Council’s decision unless there was fault in the way it reached its decision. Our role is to look at the process an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
8. In this case, the Council has followed the correct process in completing Mr Y’s care needs review. It has used a range of sources and provided reasons for its decision making. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint, as there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
9. In addition the Council has confirmed that Mr Y receives a direct payment, that is managed by Ms X. Therefore, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. And, Councils should consider a light touch review six to eight weeks after agreeing and signing off the support plan and personal budget. The Council has only recently implemented the updated care and support plan. The Council has confirmed it is undertaking an ongoing ’light touch’ review of this. It is appropriate for Ms X to raise any concerns to the Council whilst it undertakes this process.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr Y’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