Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an adult social care needs assessment. The Council has completed an assessment and explained its decision. It is unlikely we would find fault or reach a different outcome for the complainant.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council has not conducted an adequate care assessment for Mr Y, his father. Mr X also believes his father is eligible for Council funding but says the Council has not carried out a financial assessment. He says this has led to uncertainty and distress.

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
• 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y has adult social care needs, which the Council must assess and then meet any agreed eligible needs. The Council assessed these care needs, and later conducted a review, which decided Mr Y’s needs could be met at home through the provision of a care package and assistive technology.
6. The review was carried out in person with Mr Y, his relatives, and relevant professionals present. The Council explained its decision clearly and defined the support it would provide to Mr Y in his home.
7. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision and believes Mr Y’s needs would be better met in a residential care placement. The Council has advised that it will not provide Mr Y with residential care because it has not assessed he needs it. Therefore, the Council have advised a residential placement would need to be self-funded.
8. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide what package of care Mr Y needs, or whether the Council has made the wrong decision. The Ombudsman looks at if there was any fault in the process the Council followed to make its decision. There is not enough evidence of fault in the process the Council has followed. The Council included Mr Y, relevant relatives and relevant professionals in its decision. Therefore, even though Mr X strongly disagrees with the Council’s decision and finds it distressing, there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to question or criticise it.
9. In addition, Mr X says the Council has not confirmed Mr Y’s eligibility for a deferred payment agreement, which allows the use of home equity to cover residential care costs. To be eligible for this scheme, the Council indicates an individual must be assessed as needing residential care, so Mr Y does not meet the criteria. The Council’s explanation is correct in law so we have no reason to investigate the point.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. The Council made its decisions based on a properly carried out assessment and review. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot question the Council’s decisions even though Mr X disagrees with them and further investigation would not achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman