Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to reduce her direct payments. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to reduce her weekly direct payment following a review of her care needs. She said the Council had incorrectly decided she could manage on less hours, after she struggled to recruit a personal assistant to the full number of weekly allocated hours. Miss X said the Council’s assessment did not reflect the fact her care needs regularly went unmet as she struggled with nutrition and personal care.
2. Miss X also complained about how the Council completed the reviews. She said it failed to ensure she had a responsible adult present to support her. She said the Social Workers were rude and abrupt.
3. Miss X wants the Council to reinstate the additional hours.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council completed a review of Miss X’s care needs at the end of December 2023. It decided to reduce her weekly direct payment. Following her concerns, it completed a further review of her care needs in February 2023.
9. In that review, the Council considered how Miss X was using her existing hours. It identified these were in blocks and suggested rescheduling the hours to ensure her needs could be met throughout the day. The Council was also satisfied the existing hours provided time for drinks and food to be prepared and left available for Miss X between visits. The Council noted Miss X had employed one personal assistant for social support. The Council suggested those hours were redistributed amongst her other personal assistants to support her with her personal care and nutritional needs.
10. Miss X remained unhappy with the Council’s decision to reduce her direct payment. In the Council’s subsequent complaint responses, it maintained the allocated hours were proportionate to meet Miss X’s care needs. It apologised if Miss X felt distressed by how it conducted the reviews. It offered a remedy of £100 for any delay in its complaint handling. It also asked a different Professional Adviser to review Miss X’s assessment; they concluded a review was unlikely to find anything different.
11. Although Miss X is unhappy with the Council’s complaint response, we will not investigate. The Council has considered Miss X’s concern that the reduction in hours results in her needs being unmet. It has completed two care needs reviews; these have both come to the same decision about the number of support hours Miss X needs. Those assessments fully explore Miss X’s care needs. It has provided advice to Miss X about potentially rescheduling those hours and the need to prioritise her personal care and nutrition. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to justify our involvement.
12. The Council has apologised to Miss X about any upset caused by the Social Workers conduct and provided a remedy for any delay in its complaint handling. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss 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