Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to provide Mr Y’s care. We could not achieve a meaningful outcome by investigating the matter further.

The complaint

1. Ms X (Mr Y’s sister) complained about the Council’s alleged failure to meet Mr Y’s needs. She said the Council had only provided 18 hours’ care weekly of the 40 hours it assessed him as needing, since mid-2024.
2. Ms X said Mr Y had therefore been unable to access the community and meet outcomes related to this. She said their mother (Mrs Z) had been required to provide care for the remaining 22 hours weekly, against her will. Ms X said the Council’s actions breached Mrs Z’s human rights. Ms X wanted the Council to provide care urgently for the full 40 hours.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X’s complaint is about the Council’s alleged failure to provide the full 40 hours’ care weekly her brother, Mr Y, is assessed as needing in addition to paid care their mother, Mrs Z, provides via direct payments.

7. We cannot achieve a meaningful outcome in this case. This is because:
• Ms X and Mrs Z have clearly stated their intention to begin court proceedings in relation to their claim the Council’s actions have breached Mrs Z’s article 8 right to a private and family life. The courts are best placed to consider an alleged breach of human rights. While we could say whether the Council had ‘due regard’ to human rights, we could not come to a finding about whether it had breached them.
• It is also not the role of the Ombudsman to provide compensation for such a breach, and where this is a person’s primary aim we will signpost them to the courts. Ms X and Mrs Z have already begun discussing the matter with the Council’s legal team. The parties’ representations are legal matters for the courts, not the Ombudsman.
• In relation to the separable matter of whether the Council has met Mr Y’s care needs, it has already accepted some fault. The Council acknowledged some hours of care were not being provided. The Council wishes to reassess Mr Y’s needs, which would likely be the recommendation we would make if we investigated this complaint. Further investigation by us would not change the outcome.
• Mr Y’s family have been reluctant to allow the Council to reassess Mr Y until it puts care in place using a provider the family are satisfied is suitable. While other providers with availability may not be their first choice, it was open to the family to accept some care in the interim to reduce any injustice to them.
• Given the family have not accepted providers the Council has suggested, there is insufficient evidence to support their view those care providers could not meet Mr Y’s needs. It is therefore unlikely that we would find further fault by the Council in this respect if we investigated the matter. It remains open to Mr Y’s family to allow the Council to reassess Mr Y’s needs.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we could not achieve a meaningful outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman