Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with the implementation of Mr X’s son’s care plan. Mr X complains there was a breakdown in communication, the Council refused to explain how his son’s contribution became nil, and about the Council’s to only fund one hour per week to cover the management of his son’s care package. This is because the alleged faults have not caused any significant injustice. In addition, there is no ongoing significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council has dealt with the implementation of his son’s care plan since May 2022. In particular, he complains:
• There was a breakdown in communication.
• The Council refused to explain how his son’s contribution to the cost of his care became nil. Says the information provided by the Council does not show how the DRE had been calculated.
• About the Council’s decision to only pay for one hour per week for management of their son’s care package and direct payments.

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 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 an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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 X’s son’s, Mr B, care needs were reviewed in May 2022. Mr A’s care needs are met with a direct payment, and a Trust administers and manages the care package.
6. In July 2022, the Council wrote to Mr X to confirm Mr B had been assessed as having to contribute nil towards his care package. Mr X said the Council did not provide any explanation as to how this was decided.
7. The Council provided Mr X with a copy of the financial assessment. This showed a breakdown of the exact disability related expenditure (DRE) allowed, alongside Mr B’s income and allowances. This detailed that as Mr X’s expenses and allowances were more than his income, his contribution was nil.
8. The Council has completed the financial assessment in line with legislation and guidance. It is not clear exactly why Mr X is unhappy with as the breakdown of the individual DRE has been listed in the financial assessment. However, I am satisfied that, even if there was fault with the Council’s actions, this isn’t a matter we would investigate. This is because the alleged fault has not caused any significant injustice as Mr B’s assessed contribution is nil. I appreciate Mr X is concerned about future assessments, but any issues can be raised at the time. The Ombudsman would not investigate on the basis a potential fault might cause a future injustice.
9. Further, on the issue of the breakdown of communication, Mr X said the Council refused to engage with them before they issued a pre-action protocol letter. However, the Council has since communicated with Mr X and so there is no ongoing significant injustice. Therefore, it is not a proportionate use of our resources to investigate this matter.
10. There remains a dispute over the cost to manage Mr B’s care package and direct payments. The Council’s position is that there is a service provider (Company A) who can provide the service required for one hour a week. The Council’s offer is therefore to fund just under £18 to cover one hour of admin management per week.
11. Mr X’s position is that it takes them at least six hours each week dealing with care package issues. Mr X is concerned that when management of the Trust is passed on, the successor needs to be paid enough to cover the time taken to manage the care package. Mr X says one hour a week is not enough to manage Mr B’s complex package and to achieve effective supervision. Further, Mr X said he spoke with Company A and it told him they would need to complete an assessment to determine how many hours was required to manage Mr B’s care package.
12. In response to our enquiries, the Council confirmed it had also spoken with Company A and they confirmed the service could be provided at the rate given. Therefore, as this was available, the Council was not willing to fund anything over what was available from the company.
13. I appreciate Mr X is concerned the hours are not sufficient. However, the alleged fault has not yet caused any injustice. Again, it is not proportionate for us to investigate on the basis a decision may cause a future injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the alleged faults have not caused any significant injustice. In addition, there is no ongoing significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman