Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council refusing him a Direct Payment so he can purchase his own care. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that he wants Direct Payment so he can purchase his own care and support rather than have a managed package of care. Mr B says although he has the right number of hours, it is not the right package for him. Mr B says he needs the continuity of the same person cooking his food every day rather than different people.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr B has a large package of care. Following a situation in 2019 where Mr B was left without care and support, and was hospitalised as a result, the Council took the decision to provide him with a package of care. Mr B disputed this at the time and the Council wrote to him explaining the reasons. We could not add to this or make a different finding even if we investigated.
6. Mr B requested Direct Payment again in 2021 and the Council reissued the 2019 letter setting out the reasons it was not in his best interests to have a Direct Payment and said although Mr B had been offered the option of engaging a service to manage the Direct Payment for him in 2019, he had refused this option. The Council says it is unlikely the managed account service will accept another referral from him. The Council says the managed care package is working well, but it will shortly be undertaking a review of his care needs and will listen to Mr B’s reasons why he believes a Direct Payment will be a better option for him and his understanding of his employment responsibilities and liabilities to see if there are any considerations to explore further. We could not add to that.
7. The Council has considered Mr B’s request and explained why it does not believe Direct Payment are in Mr B’s best interests now. Mr B disagrees with the Council’s responses as to why he should not have a Direct Payment to purchase his own care but there is not enough evidence of fault with the Council’s actions to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Even if Mr B had a Direct Payment and employed carers this would not guarantee the same person would be able to cook his daily meals. In the absence of fault, we cannot comment on the merits of decisions even though a complainant disagrees with them.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault warranting an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman