Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about meeting adult social care needs. The complainant disagrees with the Council’s decision to reduce a package of care. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision. So it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr D says the Council made the wrong decision to reduce his relative, Mr E’s, package of care. Mr D is now providing more unpaid support to Mr E to make up the shortfall, which causes him stress and financial hardship.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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))

3. 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

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 is responsible to meet Mr E’s adult social care needs. It recently reassessed Mr E’s needs and reduced his package of support. Mr D says the Council made the wrong decision and is not adequately meeting Mr E’s needs.
7. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide what package of care Mr E needs. The Ombudsman looks at whether there was any fault in the process the Council followed to make its decision.
8. The Council’s reassessment included Mr D, Mr E and Mr E’s sister, and a relevant council officer. The Council conducted the assessment in person. Following the Council reducing Mr E’s paid care support the Council has reviewed the new package, meeting in person Mr E and his sister, and a professional from a day centre Mr E regularly attends. The Council has decided the care package meets Mr E’s needs.
9. There is not enough evidence of fault in the process the Council has followed. The Council included Mr E, relevant people in his life, and relevant professionals. The Council met with Mr E in person and has reviewed the reduced package to check if it is working. Suitable professionals made the decision. Therefore, even though Mr D strongly disagrees with the Council’s decision, there is no reason for the Ombudsman to question or criticise it.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr D’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the process the Council followed to make its decision. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman