Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to ask for a client contribution towards care and support costs. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains the Council is asking for a client contribution towards care costs although she is using her son’s assessed client contribution to pay towards private care arrangements. Mrs B says the Council stopped direct payments which was used for respite and this impacts on her and caring role. As an outcome Mrs B wants the Council to provide direct payments as it did in 2018.

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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs B and her husband provide informal care to their adult son. Mrs B said since her son transitioned to adult social care in 2018 the service from the Council has been poor. Mrs B has held last power of attorney (LPA) since around April 2022.
6. Mrs B said the Council provided direct payments but did not explain what she could use the money for. Direct payments are cash payments the Council gives direct to the person with assessed eligible needs to pay for the care and support set out in their care plan rather than the Council arranging care. Mrs B said the lack of information at the time led to issues with the management of direct payments.
7. When the Council responded to Mrs B complaint it said it was Mrs B who had requested for direct payments to stop as she was going to pay for respite herself. Mrs B said she told the Council she was going to use her son’s assessed weekly charge to pay for respite and someone from the Council’s finance team said this was fine.
8. The Council said although direct payments had stopped her son continued to receive its managed service for day centre attendance. It said this was why the client contribution still needed to be paid in line with its charging policy. The Council agreed to write off a client contribution debt which had accrued before April 2024 before Mrs B held LPA. It said the client contribution was due from April 2024. The Council told Mrs B it could complete a carers assessment and assess whether she had needs which needed to be met under the Care Act 2014.
9. We will not investigate this complaint as any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The Council wrote off a debt and explained why the client contribution needed to be paid. Mrs B can accept the Council’s offer of carers assessment which will determine whether she had eligible needs. The Council will then determine if she is eligible for a personal budget to meet any assessed eligible needs. This means she may not have to pay for respite herself.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman