Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about meeting adult social care needs. The Council has decided it is not responsible to meet the complainant’s needs because she is not ordinarily resident in its area. It is unlikely we would find fault in how the Council made this decision. It is not our decision to make so we cannot tell the Council it must meet the complainants needs.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council failed to meet its legal duties under the Care Act 2014 by refusing to provide suitable accommodation to meet her eligible care and support needs. This is making her mental health and wellbeing worse. Ms B feels constantly stressed and not safe. Ms B wants the Council to take urgent steps to meet her needs.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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. Sometimes councils must decide between themselves which organisation has to meet someone’s eligible care needs under the Care Act 2014. They do this by deciding where the person is ‘ordinarily resident’. There is no definition of ordinary residence in the Care Act, therefore, the term should be given its ordinary and natural meaning.
7. The Council completed an assessment of Ms B’s care and support needs under the Care Act. From the information it got it decided Ms B is not ordinarily resident in its area and directed her to council X.
8. If council X accepts Ms B is ordinarily resident in its area and has eligible care and support needs, then it must meet them. This might include placing her in another area, such as Ealing, if that is where her needs are best met.
9. The Ombudsman cannot decide a dispute about where Ms B is ordinarily resident. So, we cannot achieve the outcome she wants as we cannot tell the Council it must meet her needs. If there is a dispute there is a process for the councils to follow. The secretary of state for health and social care can decide.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We cannot challenge the Council’s decision unless there is fault in its decision making. In this case, I am satisfied the Council has investigated and taken the right steps in considering relevant information. I understand Ms B disagrees and is concerned by her living situation. However, this is not evidence of fault in the Council’s decision or the way it has investigated.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault. We cannot question or criticise the Council’s decision on Ms B’s ordinary residence, even though she strongly disagrees with it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman