Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to agree to pay direct payments. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with how the Council reached its decision not to provide direct payments.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the City of Wolverhampton Council (the Council) refused his request for direct payments to meet his care needs. He says this has degraded his quality of life and this has affected his mental health. Mr X wants the Council to meet his needs and provide him with 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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot decide what level of care is appropriate and adequate for any individual. This is a matter of professional judgement and a decision that the relevant responsible body has to make.

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

Brief background

6. Mr X received treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983 (the MHA) in 2014. When his treatment ended, he was entitled to free aftercare (called section 117 aftercare).
7. Mr X received some support, including social care. In 2019 the Council reviewed his needs and agreed with Mr X that he no longer needed support from adult social care. Mental health services also discharged him around the same time.
8. In July 2024, Mr X contacted the Council to ask for direct payments. He believed he could have this as part of a personal health budget because he was eligible for section 117 aftercare. Mr X was not receiving support from the Council at the time, so it considered a needs assessment. The Council agreed with Mr X that he did not have any unmet social care needs. It provided him with advice on how to seek support from mental health services and his GP should he need this.

Assessment

9. Mr X believed the Council should provide him with direct payments because of his section 117 eligibility. Although direct payment can used to meet needs identified under section 117, Mr X was not receiving any such services.
10. The record of Mr X’s contact with the Council in July 2024 shows Mr X reported concerns about debt he had. He said this was partly because he had not been receiving payments for section 117 aftercare. The Council officer reasonably questioned Mr X about any changes to his care needs since the previous social care support ended in 2019, but they did not identify any. The Council also explained it did not provide financial support, but provided Mr X with advice about other agencies that may help him.
11. The records show the Council considered Mr X’s request for direct payments, but as he was not receiving social care support and had no unmet social care needs, it could not agree this. It therefore provided advice to Mr X about how to seek support for his financial and mental health issues.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no indication of fault with how the Council decided it could not agree to pay Mr X direct payments.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman