Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to no longer commission her daughter’s care from their preferred care provider. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has decided it will no longer commission her daughter’s care from their preferred provider. She says a change in care provider will cause her daughter distress. She wants the Council to continue commissioning her daughter’s care from their preferred provider.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Where a council identifies an adult has eligible care and support needs, it must meet those needs. This could involve arranging care directly, making a direct payment to enable a person to purchase their own care and support or providing aids and adaptations.
6. In determining how to meet a person’s needs, a council is entitled to take into account its own finances and budgetary position. A council may reasonably consider how to balance the requirement to meet an individual’s needs with the need to ensure there is sufficient funding available to meet the needs of the entire local population.
7. The Council maintains an approved provider list for home care providers from which it will commission home care services. Along with other considerations, the Councils considers its own budget and the provider’s stated fees when deciding whether to include a care provider on its approved provider list.
8. Mrs X’s daughter, Y, has care and support needs. For several years, the Council has commissioned home-based care for Y from provider A.
9. Following a recent fee increase, the Council decided to remove provider A from its approved provider list. It told Mrs X that because provider A was no longer an approved provider, it could no longer commission provider A to deliver Y’s care. Y would need to move to a different provider.
10. Mrs X disagreed with this decision and complained to the Council. The Council did not change its position. It said if Mrs X wanted provider A to continue to deliver Y’s care, she would need to meet the additional weekly cost. Alternatively, the Council would work with her to identify an alternative care provider who was on the Council’s approved provider list and ensure there was a transition period between provider A and the new provider.
11. We should not investigate this complaint. The Council is entitled to take into account its own finances and budgetary considerations when deciding how it will meet a person’s needs. It has agreed to work with Mrs X to work to identify an alternative provider and ensure there is a transition period to minimise any distress to Y. This is what we would expect. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman