Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s operation of the Shared Lives Scheme as there is no evidence of a significant personal injustice to the complainant.

The complaint

1. In short, Mr X alleges failures by the Council in Care Act assessments concerning third parties, funding decisions, complaint handling, information disclosure and the operation of agreements under the Shared Lives Scheme.

Mr X says he was underpaid for providing essential care which caused him to suffer financial hardship. He seeks an apology, backdated payments, policy review and corrective action.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
• there is another body better placed to investigate.

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

3. We will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation. In addition, we will not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider community campaign about something of general concern, but where they have not suffered injustice.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman summarises his complaint against the Council as:

• Failure to carry out lawful Care Act assessments.
• Underpayment through incorrect funding and banding arrangements.
• Lack of transparency.
• Human rights concerns.
• Procedural unfairness.

7. The Council has investigated Mr X’s complaints at both stages of its complaint’s procedure. At stage one it accepted one administrative error relating to the processing of an assessment, for which it agreed a back-payment and apologised. The final stage complaint response did not uphold his complaint. The Council wrote that Mr X had not specified which adults were affected by assessment concerns. It said there was insufficient detail about the alleged widespread historic payment banding errors. It rejected Mr X’s claims of human rights breaches. It said an apology, back-pay, disciplinary action and policy review were not justified.
8. We will not investigate this complaint because we are unlikely to find sufficient evidence of a significant personal injustice to Mr X arising from the matters he raises.
9. Much of Mr X’s wide-ranging complaint is framed as a challenge to the Council's policies, alleged systemic practice failings and treatment of Shared Lives carers generally. Mr X is concerned with the impact on other carers and service users rather than demonstrating how he has personally suffered a significant injustice.
10. The Ombudsman's role is to remedy significant personal injustice caused by administrative fault, not to act as a general regulator of council policies. We do not investigate issues in the wider public interest where there is no substantial personal injustice to the complainant.
11. Further, we would not investigate a complaint about the complaints process when we are not investigating the core matter in the complaint. This is because it would not be proportionate to do so.
12. Finally, we would not consider any complaint concerning information disclosure handling as this is a matter best addressed by the Information Commission. As the regulator for information rights matters it is best placed to consider this element of Mr X’s complaint, and it would be reasonable to expect Mr X to do this.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman