Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about flexibility of meeting adult social care needs. It is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault given the Council did suggest many options. Although the complainant says they were not suitable it is unlikely we would settle that dispute. An Ombudsman investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms C says the Council failed to be flexible in how to meet the adult social care needs of her relative, Mr D. Ms C says she provided most of Mr D’s support for a few months which was stressful. Ms C would like the Council to be more flexible on the use of 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council gives Mr D direct payments to meet his assessed eligible adult social care needs. Ms C says through the summer the Council were not flexible in how Mr D could use these payments. Ms C also says provision offered by the Council was not suitable to meet Mr D’s needs.
6. The Council has given Ms C a thorough response, explaining all the options it gave. The Ombudsman could not settle the dispute about whether options the Council suggested would have gone on to be suitable. The providers would need to have assessed Mr D to confirm if they could meet his needs. But that does not mean the Council was at fault in suggesting them as an option, so it is unlikely we would find sufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council said it could treat the case as an exception and Ms C could be employed as Mr D’s personal assistant and paid by the direct payments, but Ms C declined this. So, this shows flexibility.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Ms C’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault. It is unlikely we would add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman