Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to only fund two premium economy flight tickets and its refusal to fund any other expenses. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to only fund two premium economy flight tickets and its refusal to fund any other expenses.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

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. Ms X daughter, Ms Z, has care and support needs. The Council also completed a carer’s assessment for Ms X, which identified there was an ongoing need for respite care.
7. To meet Ms X’s respite care need, she travels to another country where her family then provides the support and care to Ms Z. This allows Ms X to have respite from her caring responsibilities. Ms X received funding from the Council for years to cover first class flight tickets and expenses including transport, fuel, and spending money to enable this.
8. In terms of why Ms X considered first class tickets were necessary, she explained Ms Z needed more room because of leg swelling and needing easy and fast access to the toilet. Ms X also considered the service provided in first class was better.
9. Following a care review, the Council reconsidered its position of funding the first-class flight tickets and expenses via direct payments. This decision was taken by a panel.
10. Evidence shows the panel considered the reasons put forward by Ms X as to the need for first class tickets. The panel considered the need to be equitable in the provision of support services and how needs are met. The panel noted respite provision could be delivered within the country and therefore, while it recognised the benefit to Ms X and Ms Z in being able to travel to another country, it needed to be equal to what they would receive were it to be delivered within the country.
11. The panel decided that it could agree to premium economy tickets in recognition of Ms Z’s need for more leg room. The panel members also considered that airlines would have responsibility to make adjustments for customers with a disability and so more attentive service and support could be provided by the airlines regardless of the class of ticket.
12. The panel also considered whether it should continue to pay for the expenses incurred. The panel decided that it was not appropriate for the Council to fund any expenses as this would be considered part of ordinary holiday expenses.
13. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. While the Council has previously provided the funding for first class tickets and full expenses, the Council is not bound by its past decision. It is appropriate for the Council to review care plans and personal budgets to ensure it is sufficient to meet needs. This is also to ensure that any over funding is identified and resolved to ensure the Council is responsibly managing public funds.
14. In this case, the Council has properly considered the matter as full consideration has been given to Ms X’s comments as to why first class flights and expenses are needed. The Council has provided a clear rationale as to why it has decided to agree to funding premium economy and outlined why it is satisfied this meets Ms X’s identified need for ongoing respite provision. As there is insufficient evidence of fault with the way the Council reached its decision, we could not find fault with the decision itself.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman