Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed Ms X’s care and support needs. That is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about how the Council completed her care needs assessment. She said the Council failed to properly explain a reduction in her care and support hours; that her support plan was led by financial constraints as opposed to her needs and desired outcomes, and that it failed to value her views. She said that resulted in oppressive practice and the Council’s way of interacting with her removed choice and control over her life.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

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. Ms X moved into the Council’s area from another local authority. She initially lived in a care home where she received 24-hour support, with a long-term plan to move into her own property.
6. The Council spent several months assessing Ms X’s care needs and what support she would need when she left the care home. Ms X’s representative, Mr Y, subsequently complained on her behalf about how the Council had completed that assessment process and its engagement with Ms X. The Council provided an initial response, however Ms X remained dissatisfied. It appointed an Independent Officer to consider Ms X’s concerns.
7. The IO upheld most Ms X’s complaints. It made recommendations to the Council around its communication and transparency in decision making. The Council considered the IO’s findings. It agreed with the majority of points raised. It apologised to Ms X for any distress caused; agreed to review its processes so there was more decision around transparency and decision making and agreed to meet with Mr Y to consider Ms X’s use of an Independent Service Fund to manage her personal budget.
8. We will not investigate this complaint further. We could not add to the previous investigation and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Most of Ms X’s complaints have been upheld and the Council has agreed service improvements. The Council has set out with reasons when it has not agreed with the IO. There is no evidence of any outstanding significant injustice that would justify our further involvement.
9. Whilst the Council were investigating Ms X’s initial complaint, Mr Y complained further after the Council contacted Ms X about her direct payments and asked her to repay some money. The Council’s complaint response explained that it had contacted Ms X as it needed more information about what she had spent her direct payment on. However, it accepted that it should have worded the initial letter to Ms X differently. It said it had amended the letter it sends to reflect this. It apologised for any upset and anxiety that letter caused. As the Council has apologised and taken appropriate action, we will not investigate this complaint further. That is because further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman