Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about proposed changes to adult social care direct payments, and delay in responding to a complaint. There is no fault in a council proposing to make a change, and at this point there is no injustice caused by the proposal. We would not investigate the complaint handling separately and it does not cause significant injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council proposes to remove contingency funds from all adult social care direct payment accounts. Ms B made a complaint to keep this contingency for her son, Mr C. The Council has not responded to Ms B’s complaint and keeps changing the responsible person. Ms B is confused and upset by the delay and mixed messages.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. Mr C has given consent for Ms B to act in this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

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

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Ombudsman would not find fault with the Council proposing to make a change to its process. The Council has told relevant users of the service about the proposed change, and Ms B has been involved in a consultation process about the matter. At this stage there is no injustice caused to Mr C by the proposal. If the Council decides to change Mr C’s contingency budget, he can make a new complaint about the impact on him.
7. We do not investigate all complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
8. The Council has delayed responding to Ms B’s complaint and has changed the person assigned to investigate several times. This has caused frustration and upset to Ms B, but we would not consider that significant injustice to justify our involvement.
9. The Council has now appointed an independent complaint investigator, who has spoken with Ms B and agreed the complaint they will investigate, and the outcomes Ms B seeks.
10. It is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about.  We will not therefore investigate this issue separately. Especially given there is already an independent complaint investigation underway, which may resolve Ms B’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council proposing to make a change in process. Mr C, or Ms B on his behalf, can make a new complaint once the Council decides the matter, if they are impacted by it and consider there was fault in the decision-making process. We would not investigate complaint handling separately from that. It is unlikely we would find significant injustice solely from the complaint handling to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman