Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the way the Council considered his company receiving payment for his mother’s, Mrs C’s, care. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault to warrant an ombudsman investigation. Further investigation by us could not add to the response provided by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained about the way the Council determined funding for his mother’s, Mrs C’s care. Mr B says he was given conflicting information about Mrs C paying him using her direct payment pre-payment card, for providing her with care through his Limited Company. Mr B says because the Council ceased Mrs C’s direct payment pre-payment card he has not received payment for care he provided.

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. The Council responded to Mr B’s complaints. It explained it undertook a light touch assessment in 2020 and sent a notification letter to Mrs C explaining the figures it had used in the assessment. It advised Mrs C to contact it if this was incorrect. The Council says it undertook a light touch annual reassessment in June 2021. Mr B contacted the Council regarding Mrs C’s outgoings and provided documentary evidence to support some of Mrs C’s outgoings in April 2022. The Council completed a reassessment in May 2022 to include the documentary evidence Mr B had provided, which resulted in a reduced charge.
6. The Council explained ways of using direct payments to pay for care and paying a personal assistant to provide care. It explained if Mrs C had wanted to employ her son he would have needed to have been employed directly as a personal assistant and have insurance, or Mrs C would have needed to have a third party to administer her funds as though they were her. This is known as a managed account. It confirmed CQC’s understanding of a company and explained:

If a service user is paying a firm (whosoever that firm employs to deliver its regulated activity), then the firm is carrying on the regulated activity, and should be CQC registered and have appropriate insurance.

7. The Council says information was provided to Mrs C, and it contacted her to provide advice and support around the management of direct payments. It explained Mr B’s company could not be used to pay for care because it was not registered with CQC. Unfortunately, because the direct payment continued to be mis-managed it was ceased.
8. The Council says it arranged a managed package of care for Mrs B when it ceased direct payments to ensure she was not left without care. It acknowledged this had not been agreed with her. The Council also acknowledged direct payments should not have been reinstated. The Council apologised and explained this was due to a misunderstanding.
9. We could not say there is evidence of fault with the Council’s decision not to allow Mrs C to pay Mr B for care he provided through his company. Further investigation by us could not make a different finding of the kind Mr B wants.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman