Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about financial assessment for adult social care costs. The Council followed the correct process and asked for information it considered necessary to make its decision. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find enough evidence of fault, add to the Council's investigation, or achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr E says the Council has acted unlawfully and threatened and coerced him into providing confidential information about a trust. The Council was completing Mrs F’s financial assessment for contribution toward adult social care fees. Mr E says the Council has breached the Human Rights Act and interfered with private financial arrangements.

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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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. When the Council arranges a person's adult social care it must also assess what if anything they can pay toward that care. The Ombudsman considers whether there was fault in the process the Council followed to make its decisions about the financial assessment. The Ombudsman cannot decide legal matters; that is for the court to decide.
7. The Council has sought information from Mr E about a legal trust so it can complete its financial assessment. The Council explained Mrs F was responsible to pay the full costs of her care until it had the necessary information to complete the financial assessment. This is the correct process so it is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault by the Council.
8. From the correspondence I have seen there is no evidence the Council acted in a threatening or coercive way toward Mr E. The Council’s correspondence remained professional. So, it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would find evidence of fault.
9. The Council made its decision on Mrs F’s financial assessment having seen documents it considers necessary, asking relevant questions, and a suitably qualified officer considered the legal issues. There does not appear fault in the process, so the Ombudsman cannot question the outcome even though Mr E disagrees.
10. The Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to. The Act requires all local authorities - and other bodies carrying out public functions - to respect and protect individuals’ rights.
11. Not all rights work in the same way. Instead, they break down into three separate categories:

• Absolute rights: those which cannot be interfered with under any circumstances.
• Limited rights: those that can be interfered with in certain circumstances; and
• Qualified rights: those rights where interference may be justified to protect the rights of others or wider public interest. Note that any interference with a qualified right must be in accordance with the law; in pursuit of a legitimate aim; no more than necessary to achieve the intended objective; and must not be arbitrary or unfair.

12. The Ombudsman’s powers do not extend to deciding whether a body in jurisdiction has breached the Human Rights Act – this can only be done by the courts. But the Ombudsman can make decisions about whether a body in jurisdiction has had due regard to an individual’s human rights in their treatment of them, as part of our consideration of a complaint.
13. The Council has given a thorough response to Mr E’s complaint, including explaining it considers any interference of human rights was in pursuit of a legitimate aim. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of this issue.
14. Mr E believes the Council has acted unlawfully; it is open to him to seek legal advice and consider court action.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find evidence of fault, add to the Council’s investigation, or reach a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman