Summary: We have upheld Mrs X’s complaint because the Council delayed considering her request for direct payments. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has:
• refused to pay direct payments to her husband for him to provide her with care;
• made errors in its calculation of her support needs;
• ignored her request for an occupational therapy (“OT”) assessment and;
• delayed addressing her complaint.
2. She says this has caused distress and financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
4. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. If we were to investigate it is likely we would find fault causing Mrs X injustice because the Council has delayed considering her request for direct payments to pay her husband to provide care since October 2025. This has caused Mrs X distress and uncertainty.
8. I note Mrs X continued to receive care from her husband and would not have accepted it from anyone else. And even if the Council agrees to the direct payment now in light of further information, I cannot say it would have reached the same decision earlier without that information. I note the Council has already apologised, given reasons for its delay and confirmed action to prevent recurrence. However, it has not yet issued a decision on the request.
9. In its complaint responses the Council agreed to review Mrs X’s care and support plan. I expect the Council’s review to address any errors Mrs X is concerned of, therefore further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. However, I note this review has not yet taken place.
10. The care assessments record Mrs X did not want an OT assessment. However in response to her complaint the Council confirmed it had recommended a referral to OT and signposted Mrs X on where to apply for a disabled facilities grant. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
11. It is not a proportionate use of resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive issues.
12. I therefore asked the Council to complete the following actions within one month of a final decision to resolve the complaint early:
• Review Mrs X’s care and support plan taking into account the errors she references;
• Provide Mrs X with a written decision and reasons in response to her request that the Council pay direct payments to her husband as carer.

Agreed action

13. To its credit the Council agreed to resolve the complaint early by completing the actions at paragraph 12.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman