Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains on behalf of her relative, Mrs X, about the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s adult social care. She says:
• she disagrees with the Council’s financial assessment for Mrs X; and
• the Council has not properly handled safeguarding concerns she raised about Mrs X.
2. Mrs Y says the current care package is causing Mrs X financial difficulty and she is concerned about her safety. She wants the Council to fund Mrs X’s care and move her into residential care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs Y and the Council.
5. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs Y complains about the Council’s financial assessment for Mrs X. She says the assessed contributions are too high and it fails to make allowance for her other needs.
7. Since Mrs Y complained to us, the Council has carried out an updated financial assessment. The updated assessment reduced Mrs X’s contributions by more than half and approved additional disability related expenses (DREs). It also invited Mrs Y to provide further evidence for the Council’s consideration if she disagreed with the assessment.
8. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council carried out the updated financial assessment. The assessment shows the Council considered evidence Mrs Y provided in accordance with its charging policy. It ensured Mrs X was left with the minimum income guarantee and provided a breakdown of how it calculated her updated costs, and reasons why it decided to approve or not approve any DREs. As there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council completed the updated assessment, we cannot question the outcome.

Safeguarding

9. Mrs Y also complains about the Council’s handling of safeguarding concerns about Mrs X. These include concerns about the quality of her home care, financial transactions she had made and whether her care arrangements remained suitable as her needs increased.
10. The Council investigated the concerns Mrs Y raised. It arranged meetings with the relevant people and professionals, created a protection plan to safeguard Mrs X and minimise the risk of harm, and initiated section 42 safeguarding enquiries. These enquiries allowed the Council to continue discussing the concerns with relevant parties and monitor the implementation of the protection plan. The Council took appropriate action to address and investigate the safeguarding concerns. Further investigation by us could not add to the Council’s investigation.
11. The Council also carried out a care review following the concerns Mrs Y raised. It considered the views of both Mrs X and Mrs Y and considered whether residential or home care was suitable. It weighed the risks and benefits of both options and identified measures to reduce the risks and safeguard Mrs X at home. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council carried out the care review. Therefore we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman