Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how best to meet someone’s adult social care needs. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council has reached its decisions. The Council has decided the care package based on proper reviews and professional assessments. Even though the complainant disagrees with the Council, the Ombudsman could not achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council wrongly reduced the care support for his relative, Ms C. Mr B says this puts Ms C at risk.

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 Ms C adult social care needs. It does so with a mixed care package of daily support from a care agency and a personal assistant who Ms C employs (paid by direct payments from the Council).
7. The Council must keep care packages under review at least each year. The Council increased the hours for the personal assistant following a review that decided Ms C’s needs had increased. The Council referred to an Occupational Therapist (OT) to assess if there were aids and equipment that could meet some of Ms C’s needs. The OT decided a specialist chair would help, so once this was provided the personal assistant hours were decreased because the Council was now meeting Ms C’s needs in a different way.
8. Although Mr B disagrees with the Council’s decisions on how to meet Ms C’s care and support needs, there is no reason for the Ombudsman to question or criticise the decision. The Council has made its decisions on Ms C’s care package based on properly completed reviews and OT assessments.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. The Ombudsman would not add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman