Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of a person’s adult social care needs. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council completed its assessments to justify the Ombudsman investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council has not properly assessed the care his mother, Ms C, needs to live safely at home. Ms C is paying for a live in carer which she cannot continue to afford.

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.

(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.
6. I considered the Care Act 2014 and associated statutory guidance.

Back to top

My assessment

7. When a council becomes aware of someone in its area that may need adult social care, it must complete an assessment of their needs. Ms C’s family contacted the Council to say Ms C was paying for a live in carer, but her funds were running down, and she now needed support from the local authority.
8. The Council completed an assessment, but decided Ms C’s needs could be met by carers visiting throughout the day and using assistive technology. The Council assessed Ms C does not have care needs overnight and so 24-hour care was not needed. The Council’s assessment was completed in person at Ms C’s home, with her daughter present.
9. The Council completed a reassessment seven months later because of the dispute by Ms C’s family over her needs. The reassessment was completed in person at Ms C’s home with her children present, and the Council spoke with Ms C’s live-in carer. The Council again assessed Ms C does not need 24-hour care.
10. When deciding how a person’s care needs should be met, councils must consider the least restrictive option. The Council does not consider Ms C needs 24-hour care and so will not provide it, even though Ms C and her family feel she now relies on it having had it for a year.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating. The Council has met its duties under the Care Act by completing an assessment of Ms C’s needs. The Council met Ms C in person at her home to assess her and included family members. Although Mr B disagrees with the outcome, the Ombudsman cannot question or criticise where there is not enough evidence of fault in the process of how the Council reached its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman