Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council is requiring him to provide proof of how direct payments for social care are spent and questioned his financial probity. The Council has not caused Mr X an injustice. It has not concluded its audit.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council has alleged he has not managed direct payments to deliver social care properly, has failed to account for expenditure and paid himself inappropriately. Mr X says the Council has caused him distress, time and trouble and questioned his probity. Mr X complains the Council has ignored his letters and is acting with malice. Mr X says the Council should withdraw the allegations, apologise, and pay compensation. He says there should be an independent investigation into its actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered Mr X’s information, comments and reply to my draft decision statement. I have clarified the position with the Council and considered the complaint correspondence.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X provides and organises personal care for a vulnerable person. The Council pays for care via direct payments to Mr X. On 1 May 2019, the Council decided to review the direct payments arrangement. The officer note says: ‘Audit completed – no invoices/timesheets provided for care provided – concerns raised regarding care provide [Mr X] pays himself for administration, training, weekly overnight stays – this case requires scrutiny – red review’
5. Mr X objects to the officer note saying it ‘besmirched my character’ and ‘questions my financial probity’. Mr X says the Council’s actions do not comply with the Care Act which says there should be an annual review of direct payments. He says the Council is not acting proportionately by demanding more frequent returns.
6. The Council has asked Mr X to provide evidence of expenditure claimed. It says Mr X has not provided the requested evidence and it has not therefore completed its audit of the direct payments.
7. Mr X provided the Council with a completed ‘Direct Payment Quarterly Returns’ form for January to March 2020. The form claims carers fees and expenses of £13,084. The form is not signed or dated. I understand there is no accompanying proof of expenditure.
8. The Council says in January 2020 Mr X applied to the Court of Protection for joint deputyship to manage the service user’s personal welfare (with a relative). The Council says it opposes the application and a hearing is due later this year.
9. The Council says there is currently some disagreement with Mr X about the service users care needs/plan. It says direct payments are being made. Arrangements will be reviewed following the conclusion of the Court of Protection case.
10. Mr X says the Council delayed replying to his complaint of 22 April and has not replied to all correspondence. The Council’s complaint reply is dated 4 September 2020.

Analysis

11. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons:
12. There is no fault in the Council’s decision to request Mr X to provide proof of how direct payments are spent including details of care staff and invoices. The Council has a responsibility to ensure public money is spent appropriately and that care is provided to the service user.
13. The Council has not caused Mr X injustice. The matter could be resolved or significantly progressed if Mr X provides the requested evidence. The officer note (see paragraph 4 above) to which Mr X objects gives reasons for the audit. The note expresses concern but is not the audit outcome or a judgement on Mr X’s character.
14. The Court of Protection is dealing with an application by Mr X for deputyship which will consider the appropriateness of him managing the service user’s welfare affairs. The Council is opposing the application. It is not appropriate for the Ombudsman to investigate when a case is before a court. It is possible some of the issues about the needs and welfare of the service user could overlap with this complaint. The handling of direct payments is not just a financial matter.
15. There is no reason to investigate the Council’s complaint handling or communications with Mr X. It has explained its position to him and I do not consider the communications have caused him injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

16. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council is requiring him to provide proof of how direct payments for social care are spent and questioned his financial probity. The Council has not caused Mr X an injustice. It has not concluded its audit.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman