Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council meeting his care needs. This is because we are unlikely to add to the Council’s response and there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not met his assessed care and support needs. Mr X says he has had to fund additional care himself. Mr X also complains the Council has not appropriately communicated with him. He says this has caused him distress and impacted him financially. Mr X wants the Council to meet his care needs and reimburse the care assistance costs he paid.

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.

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

3. We cannot find that an organisation has breached the Equality Act. However, we can find an organisation at fault for failing to take account of its duties under the Equality Act.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council provides Mr X direct payments to meet his care and support needs. Mr X also has a flat mate who provides him with support. Mr X said the Council has not provided him with enough funds to meet his personal care needs and the support his flat mate provides.
7. In response to Mr X’s concerns, the Council carried out a review of his care and support needs. Following the review, the Council increased his direct payments by six hours a week. It also offered to provide Mr X with support when his flat mate was away. As Mr X remained unhappy, the Council said it would arrange for an Occupational Therapist to complete an assessment with him. The Council told us it had carried out the assessment.
8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because the Council appropriately responded to Mr X’s concerns. It carried out a review of his care and support needs and later, carried out an assessment to establish any unmet care needs. This is what we would expect the Council to do. We could not add to the Council’s investigation, and a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
9. Mr X also complained the Council failed to communicate with him using the social model of disability. Councils are not required to use the social model of disability in their communications. However, they must have due regard to their duties under the Equality Act 2010. We cannot determine whether an organisation has breached the Equality Act, as that is a matter for the courts. However, we can consider whether a council has properly considered its duties under the Act.
10. The Council has made reasonable adjustments to meet Mr X’s needs. For example, when Mr X requested the Council not carry out home visits, it agreed to communicate with him through online meetings. On balance, there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered its duties under the Equality Act.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to add to the Council’s response and there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman