Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to increase the amount the complainant receives to pay for his social care. This is because the Council has proposed a care review in response to the request. This is reasonably required to consider any changes to a person’s personal budget and care plan. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mr Z) complains about the Council’s refusal to increase the amount he receives in direct payments which is used to pay for his social care needs. He says his current care and support worker has given him notice of an increase to the hourly rate charged for his social care. Mr Z explains the increase is higher than the amount he receives from the Council to commission his social care. He feels the Council’s refusal is unfair and does not comply with relevant care and equality legislative.
2. In summary, Mr Z says his social care needs cannot be met without an increase to his direct payments. He also says the alleged fault is a cause of significant distress and uncertainty. As a desired outcome, he wants the Council to apologise for the failings and increase his direct payments.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review. (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. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In response to Mr Z’s complaint, the Council has proposed to carry out a care review of his needs. I recognise Mr Z believes this is not appropriate because he does not consider his care needs have changed. He explains the increase is needed only because his care and support worker is increasing their hourly rate on account of increased operating costs. However, the Council is entitled to review the delivery of a services users’ social care before deciding on any increase. This is to ensure the allocated personal budget accurately reflects the needs identified in their care plan. Further, the Council may wish to review whether a direct payment is still the most efficient and appropriate means of meeting those needs. We are unlikely to find fault with the approach proposed by the Council. I consider it would be reasonable for the Mr Z to complete a care review in the first instance before asking we investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has proposed a care review which is reasonably required to consider Mr Z’s request. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman