Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the care review completed by the Council and the decision to include information which Ms X considers was out of date, and of the Council’s refusal to appoint her an advocate. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about a care review completed by the Council. She says the Council relied on out-of-date information and failed to check with her before relying on the information. She also complains about the Council’s decision not to appoint her an advocate.

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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (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 completed a care review of Ms X’s care and support needs in November 2023. The outcome of this was that Ms X had no eligible care and support needs.
7. Ms X was unhappy with the Council including information in the review that was taken from her social media profile. The Council explained it had sought legal advice and it was confirmed it was common practice to consider information published on the internet if the source is obviously the person in question.
8. I also note the Council had detailed within the care review that Ms X had objected to the inclusion of the information and her comments as to why she felt the information should not be relied upon.
9. An investigation is not justified because we are not likely to find fault. This is because the Council has explained why it had included information and noted Ms X’s objections. The Council can exercise its professional judgment as to what information it considers is relevant to its review of Ms X’s care and support needs. I have also reviewed the care review completed by the Council and do not consider there is evidence to suggest it was not completed properly.
10. Ms X also complains about the Council’s refusal to appoint her an advocate. The Council explained that while it initially referred Ms X for an advocate, it said this was done without full consideration of the criteria for a Care Act 2014 advocate.
11. The Council explained it had considered her history of participation in care and support assessments and communication with the Council and was satisfied she would not experience substantial difficulties in the absence of an independent advocate. The Council confirmed Ms X had demonstrated an ability to be fully involved in discussions, to retain, understand, and weigh up information, and to communicate her views. Therefore, a care act advocate was not required for the care review completed in November 2023.
12. The Ombudsman looks at the processes 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, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
13. In this case, I am satisfied the Council has properly considered whether Ms X meets the criteria for a Care Act advocate. As it reached its decision properly, we cannot question the decision itself. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman