Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to reduce her son Mr Y’s care hours and it not explaining its reasons for the change. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating. The Council’s apology for not explaining its decision is the appropriate result for that complaint issue so an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr Y is autistic and has mental health conditions. Prior to his latest care assessment, he was receiving eight hours of care provision per day. Miss X is Mr Y’s mother. She complains the Council:
1. cut Mr Y’s care hours from eight to six hours per day;
2. failed to consider relevant information when deciding to reduce his hours;
3. failed to explain the reasons for its decision to cut Mr Y’s hours.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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

4. I considered information from Miss X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes they have followed to make their assessments and decisions. We cannot replace a decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision was reached after following proper process.
6. In response to Miss X’s complaint, the Council reviewed Mr Y’s care assessments and case notes and spoke to officers involved in the decisions on his care provision. The Council says Mr Y’s previous care plan had increased his provision to eight hours per day because circumstances at the time meant he needed more hours. Miss X had her own health needs so could not then provide as much support and company for Mr Y alongside his adult social care hours. The Council says Mr Y’s latest assessment also showed he could complete some tasks independently and no longer required constant support during the day from his personal assistant.
7. Officers considered relevant information about Mr Y’s abilities, needs and current living circumstances when making their decision about his care package. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making here when changing Mr Y’s provision to warrant us investigating. We recognise Miss X and Mr Y may disagree with the decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
8. The Council accepts it failed to effectively tell Miss X the reasons for it reducing Mr Y’s care hours when it made its decision. Once Miss X complained, officers explained the reasons for the change. The Council also apologised for its initial failure in communicating its decision to Miss X and Mr Y. An apology is the result we would seek for this part of the complaint, were we to investigate. There is no different outcome to be achieved by us investigating this part of the complaint so we will not do so.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating; and
• an investigation into the Council not explaining its decision would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman