Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Care Act assessment of Mr Y because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council’s care assessment of her son Mr Y is inaccurate. Further it did not meet his preference for an online video call and delayed in its complaint handling.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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))

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. A council will carry out a care assessment to identify a person’s care and support needs and whether they are eligible for support from the council. It must complete such assessments in line with the Care Act and statutory guidance.
7. The assessment and eligibility criteria for a Care Act assessment differ to those for an Education Heath and Care Needs Assessment (“EHCNA”).
8. The Council’s record of Mr Y’s care assessment shows it met with him face to face and considered he was able to communicate and engage in the process. Mr Y did not wish to have his mother present which the Council respected.
9. The care assessment record shows the Council assessed Mr Y against relevant criteria, taking into account his views and relevant information. It also took into account the views of his mother, Mrs X, as recorded in a parent carer needs assessment. The care assessment found Mr Y had no eligible care needs.
10. That the care assessment does not include the same information as Mr Y’s EHCNA is not evidence of fault. And that Mrs X disagrees with the assessment and the professional opinion of the Council officer is not evidence of fault. The assessment does say Mr Y has taken a cooking course which Mrs X says is incorrect. However, I am satisfied any error did not affect the Council’s decision that Mr Y could manage his nutrition, which was based on information that he could prepare simple meals. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s assessment to justify an investigation.
11. I have not seen any records to show Mr Y asked the Council to complete the care assessment by online video or seen the Council’s consideration of this request. However, I note Mr Y was nonetheless able to participate in the face to face assessment. And I note the Council has since offered to review his needs. Any remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify an investigation.
12. It is not a proportionate use of resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive matter.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman