Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to reduce the day centre support Mr Z receives. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X is a shared lives carer for Mr Z. She complains about the Council’s decision to reduce the day centre support Mr Z receives. She says Mr Z’s care needs have increased and he is now financially worse off as he must now pay for the day centre visits himself.

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 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))
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.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X is a shared lives carer for Mr Z. In June 2023, the Council completed a care review of Mr Z’s care and support needs and completed a care plan in July 2023.
7. The care plan detailed the care and support Mr Z required to meet his assessed care and support needs. This was the shared lives placement with Mrs X and five hours of community support. The care plan also detailed that Mr Z was receiving three days at a day centre under the block contract.
8. The Council explained it commissioned an organisation to provide the shared lives service. The organisation had a contract with the Council to provide services and deliver support such as the shared lives scheme, respite provision, reablement, and some day care centres. The Council confirmed some of these services were paid as a lump sum via a block contract.
9. The Council confirmed the commissioned organisation had been allowing Mr Z access to three days at the day centre without the Council’s knowledge. The Council said this was an informal agreement between the two branches of the commissioned organisation and was not something the Council had directly arranged or commissioned for Mr Z.
10. In December 2023, the Council reviewed Mr Z’s care and support needs. This identified that Mr X’s care and support needs had not changed.
11. The January 2024 care plan detailed the care and support Mr Z required. This was the shared lives placement with Mrs X and one day at a day centre. The Council commissioned the day centre as the community support hours had ended.
12. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. This is because the Council has followed the appropriate process by reviewing Mr Z’s care and support needs before updating his care plan.
13. Further, the evidence shows the Council has not reduced Mr Z’s care and support. This is because the evidence showed Mr Z received additional care and support (attendance at the day centre) due to an informal agreement with his shared lives commissioned provider. This care provision ended during the COVID-19 pandemic.
14. Therefore, while it appears on the face of it Mr Z had lost two days at the day centre, this was not actually the case as Mr X was never assessed as requiring those days. In addition, the three days at the day centre was never part of Mr Z’s care plan.

Back to top

Final decision

15. 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