Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint, concerning the way the Council has administered her daughter’s Direct Payments. This is because an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, says her daughter receives Direct Payments from the Council. Ms X recently engaged with the Council about changes to these payments and says she had to spend unnecessary time and effort securing a resolution. She says she and her daughter also had to face an unwarranted and intrusive review of her daughter’s care and support needs. Ms X is seeking an improved service from the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council, which included the Council’s response to Ms X’s complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. Ms X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In April 2021, Ms X complained to the Council about the way her daughter’s Direct Payments had been administered. Ms X highlighted difficulties she had experienced, including a lack of return calls and a review of her daughter’s care and support needs that Ms X said had involved unnecessary, intrusive questions. Ms X objected to the necessity, duration and tone of these meetings, as well as the scope of information requested. On receiving the Council’s response to her complaint, Ms X remained dissatisfied and referred the matter to us.
7. Where it appears that an adult may have needs for care and support, the Care Act 2014 imposes a duty on local authorities to assess an adult’s needs, irrespective of the authority’s view on the level of care and support required by the adult. The statutory guidance states that assessment reviews should be carried out at least every 12 months, or where there is an indication that an adult’s circumstances have changed.
8. In its response to Ms X’s complaint, the Council provided a chronology of its contact with Ms X and acknowledged improvements it could have made to its service. It apologised that Ms X had been made to feel interrogated, advising this was not the intention and it had sought to understand as much as possible about Ms X’s daughter’s needs. The Council said it was necessary to carry out an assessment of Ms X’s daughter because her care needs had recently changed and it had been some time since the previous assessment. The Council said it would allocate a specific worker to Ms X’s daughter once the assessment was finalised.
9. We would not find fault with the Council’s stated reasons for conducting a review. Given this explanation, the apology offered and the measures proposed to improve the service, it is unlikely that an investigation by the Ombudsman would lead to a substantively different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because an investigation into the matters raised is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman