Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to pay him direct payments to provide care to his partner’s, Ms B’s, mother, Mrs C. This is because it is unlikely he would find evidence of fault or make a different finding to that already provided to Mr B by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council has not provided him with a good enough reason not to continue paying him and his partner, Ms B, to provide personal care to her mother, Mrs C. Mr B says Mrs C’s care provision was inadequate, so in 2016 he and Ms B gave up their home and business to provide care and support to Mrs C. Mr B says they applied for and received direct payments in February 2019 but following a safeguarding alert from Mrs C’s GP, the Council decided not to continue paying direct payments for the care they provided to Mrs C. Mr B also complains about the care Mrs C received from her respite care providers. He says on one occasion Mrs C returned from respite care with a cut to her arm and on another occasion she returned from respite care a stone and a half heavier. Mr B says neither of these incidences have been properly investigated. In addition Mr B says he observed carers force feeding residents.

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, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I discussed the concerns with Mr B and considered the information and documentation he and the Council provided. I sent Mr B a copy of my draft decision and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B says he and his partner gave up their home and business to provide care for Mrs C, in 2016. In February 2019, the Council awarded them direct payments to provide her care, but following a safeguarding referral, it decided to cease providing direct payments. From March 2020 Mrs C has lived in residential care due to flooding in her property. Concerns about Mrs C’s accommodation and finances are being considered by the Court of Protection. The Ombudsman cannot consider these matters.
5. The Council explained the reasons why it will not resume direct payments and are further considering whether Mr and Ms B’s actions are in the best interests of Mrs C. It says it is concerned about:

• Mr and Ms B’s move into Mrs C's property.
• Refurbishment of the property.
• Mr and Ms B’s reluctance to work with services to promote Mrs C's health wellbeing.
• Medication at night time appropriateness. - Change in bedroom to accommodate carers.
• Having pets in the property — risk assessment completed.

6. 12.36 of the Care Act 2014 says:

The 2009 Direct Payment Regulations excluded the payment from being used to pay for care from a close family member living in the same household, except where the local authority determined this to be necessary. While the Care and Support (Direct Payments) Regulations 2014 maintain this provision regarding paying a family member living in the same household for care, it provides a distinction between ‘care’ and ‘administration/management’ of the direct payment. This allows people to pay a close family member living in the same household to provide management and/or administrative support to the direct payment holder in cases where the local authority determines this to be necessary. This is intended to reflect the fact that in some cases, especially where there are multiple complex needs, the direct payment amount may be substantial.

7. There is no evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council not to reinstate Mrs C’s direct payments for the reasons provided.
8. Mr B complained the Council failed to properly consider a cut Mrs B sustained to her arm from her respite care provider. The Council considered Mr B’s complaint. It says it investigated his concerns and found Mrs C’s care provider sought medical help when the cut was found, and considered it to be a minor cut not requiring medical intervention. It explained the threshold for safeguarding had not been reached in this case. The Ombudsman could not say this is fault or add to this point even if he investigated.
9. Mr B says he observed carers force feeding residents and is concerned Mrs C returned from respite care a stone and half heavier than when she left. Mr B says the Council says her weight gain was because she ate well. The Ombudsman could not make a finding on the cause of Mrs B’s weight gain during a period of respite care in August 2019 or say this was due to neglect. Mr B can advise the police and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of his concerns about his observations of force feeding.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely he would find evidence of fault or make a different finding to that already provided to Mr B by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman