Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to stop her daughter’s direct payments in October 2024 and about an outstanding debt the Council says needs to be paid back. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any further outcomes.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to stop her daughter’s direct payments in October 2024 and about an outstanding debt the Council says needs to be paid back.

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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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. Mrs X’s daughter, Miss Z, had eligible care and support needs. The Council said Miss Z’s care and support plan detailed her social care outcomes was for Miss Z to be supported in the community with two personal assistants. A direct payment of £600 per week was used to arrange this care. The Council confirmed the support plan only detailed personal assistant support and mileage.
6. Miss Z went into hospital in April 2023. The Council said that when someone is admitted to hospital, it will usually only continue direct payments for up to four weeks. This is to maintain employment and continuity of care. Council noted this could be extended if it appeared discharge was likely soon after four weeks.
7. In this case, the Council confirmed it had extended Miss Z’s direct payment for longer than usual due to being given information that her discharge was imminent. Council made decision to end direct payment funding at the end of October 2024. The Council explained this was because it had been told Miss X’s care would be funded under continuing health care and that personal assistants would no longer be part of any care provision post discharge. Therefore, there was no longer any need to maintain continuity.
8. The Council noted Mrs X’s views that Miss Z’s personal assistants were valuable advocates for her. However, the Council explained that while Miss Z was in hospital, her needs needed to be met by the NHS and that it was the hospital’s responsibility to ensure Miss Z’s safety. The Council appropriately signposted Mrs X to complain to the NHS if she considered they were not meeting Miss Z’s needs or if there was a safety risk to Miss Z. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault.
9. The Council told Mrs X that some of the direct payment money was not spent in accordance with the care plan. This was because money was used to cover expenditure that wasn’t personal assistants or mileage, nor were they costs that met Miss Z’s assessed outcomes. The Council provided details of the claimed costs which the Council considered were not authorised payments and asked for this to be repaid.
10. Mrs X provided the Council with receipts to evidence what the money was spent on. The Council considered this in February 2025 and confirmed it accepted just over £1071 of expenditure was accounted for. However, just over £657 of transactions remained disputed. However, the Council confirmed it had agreed to write this amount off and confirmed it would not make any further requests for payment. Therefore, an investigation is not proportionate because it would not lead to any further outcomes.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any further outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman