Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council managed his daughter, Miss Z’s, move to a residential home and the personal allowance she received. Any injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to provide his daughter, Miss Z, with the information she required to make an informed decision when she moved from supported living to a residential placement.
2. Mr X says that if Miss Z had been properly informed she would not have agreed to the move. Both Mr X and Miss Z want Miss Z to remain in the residential placement but to receive the same allowance she had when she was in supported living.

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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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

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. Miss Z used to live in supported living. As a result, she made a contribution towards her care but was left with a guaranteed level of income as laid down in statutory regulations. When she moved to a residential placement her income changed to a personal allowance, which was significantly lower than her guaranteed income. This again was in line with legislation.
7. Mr X says that Miss Z would not have agreed to the move if she had known her income would drop so much. The Council admits Miss Z moved before it carried out another financial assessment but states this happened because it was an emergency move.
8. Miss Z continued to be paid benefits which she was not entitled to. Because she remained adamant she was unaware of the decrease in income when she moved, the Council repaid the benefit on her behalf up to the point it could evidence it had discussed her financial situation and its impact. This amounted to around £3,500.
9. Neither Miss Z nor Mr X want another move because Miss Z is happy and receiving the care she needs in her support plan. Instead, Mr X and Miss Z want the Council to increase her personal allowance so it is the same as her guaranteed income.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. Miss Z is receiving the level of personal allowance set by legislation. We could not compel the Council to pay an amount it does not legally have to. This means we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X and Miss Z want.
11. In addition, we cannot say now what would have happened if Miss Z had been aware of the reduction in income before her move; nor whether she would have had to move to residential care in any case. However, the Council has repaid Miss Z’s overpayment of benefits to an amount which remedies any potential injustice she experienced.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any outstanding injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman