Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly removed him as his son, Mr Z’s, personal assistant and reduced Mr Z’s care and support hours. There is not enough evidence of fault to start an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• reduced his son’s social care hours following a recent review; and
• told him he cannot be his son’s personal assistant (PA).
2. Mr X says this has had an impact on Mr Z because he is not receiving the support he needs. Mr X also says that he has lost his job as he can no longer act as Mr Z’s PA.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Under the Care Act 2014, someone can only pay relatives who live with them to be their personal assistant (PA) under exceptional circumstances.
8. Mr Z used to have a weekly package of care which consisted of 4 days at a day care centre and 28.5 hours of PA care. The Council decided there were exceptional circumstances and agreed that Mr X could be the PA, even though he was Mr Z’s father and they lived together. These arrangements remained in place for a number of years.
9. In 2023, a Council officer reassessed Mr Z. As part of this process, they spoke to Mr Z’s parents and his day care centre. They also appointed an independent advocate to represent Mr Z as well as trying to obtain Mr Z’s own views.
10. The assessor concluded Mr Z’s weekly care package should be amended to increase his day care centre attendance to 5 days and his PA hours reduced to 16 hours. Going forward, the PA hours would be provided by a non-family member. The assessor said that this package of care, together with the informal support provided by Mr Z’s parents and family, would enable his wellbeing to be maintained. Mr Z’s weekly personal budget was reduced from around £1,000 to £450.
11. Mr X complained to the Council. In its response, it said Mr Z’s case had been considered by the Council’s Complex Direct Payments Forum which had concluded there were no exceptional circumstances which required Mr X to be Mr Z’s PA. It based its decision on feedback from Mr Z’s day care centre, the fact there were no communication, ethnic or religious belief to prevent carers from outside the family and Mr Z’s care needs were predictable and so would not pose a challenge to a carer or agency.
12. The Council said Mr Z’s support plan now needed to be agreed with the family. This would allow different options to be developed and the best way forward identified to meet Mr Z’s needs.
13. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.
14. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council properly assessed Mr Z’s care needs. It appointed an independent advocate to support Mr Z and spoke to the relevant people involved in providing care. There was no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to reduce Mr Z’s package of care. Therefore, we cannot question the decision itself.
15. Furthermore, Mr Z’s support package still needs to be agreed. This will give Mr X the opportunity to feed into the process and decide if he wishes to provide the informal support Mr Z will need. If Mr X is unhappy with the support package, he can complain to the Council and to us again if he remains unhappy.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to start an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman