Summary: Mr X complained the Council stopped his direct payments, withdrew an increase in care hours, and gave confusing information. I find no fault in the way the Council made its decision about the direct payments. There was a minor error in the Council’s complaint response, but there is no evidence that this caused Mr X significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained Essex County Council (the Council) stopped his direct payments, withdrew a proposed increase to his care package, and gave confusing information about repayments and complaint outcomes. Mr X said this caused him distress and financial difficulty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
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
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

7. The Care Act 2014 says councils must ensure direct payments are used to meet assessed needs set out in an individual’s care and support plan. Councils must monitor direct payments and review care plans regularly. Where there is evidence of misuse, councils may stop direct payments and put in place alternative arrangements, such as a managed direct payment or a managed care package.

What happened

8. Mr X asked for an increase to the number of care hours funded by his direct payment. Following this, the Council’s direct payments team sought information about how Mr X had been using his direct payments and asked him to provide evidence.
9. Mr X supplied material which the Council considered alongside his care plan and the terms of his direct payment agreement. The Council found some payments had been used for items and activities not included in Mr X’s support plan and that assessed charges had not been paid.
10. The Council advised Mr X the direct payment would stop due to misuse. It offered him either a managed direct payment or a fully managed care package instead. It also reviewed Mr X’s care package to confirm how many support hours were needed. The Council worked with Mr X to ensure support continued to deliver the agreed hours in line with an updated support plan.
11. Mr X complained that he had previously been told he could use the direct payments more flexibly. However, there is no record of such advice and Mr X had signed a direct payment agreement setting out what the funds could be used for.
12. Later, in responding to Mr X’s formal complaint, the Council issued a letter that mistakenly stated part of the complaint was upheld. The Council subsequently clarified this was a typographical error and that the complaint was not upheld. The Council has apologised for this error.

Analysis

13. The Council identified concerns about how Mr X was using his direct payments, requested information, and considered the evidence before deciding to end the direct payment and move to a managed arrangement. I find no fault in the way the Council made the decision, and therefore we cannot question the outcome.
14. The Council also ensured Mr X’s support continued under a managed arrangement, so there was no loss of service. I therefore find no fault in the Council’s decision‑making or its handling of the direct payment arrangements.
15. The complaint response contained a typographical error which the Council later corrected and apologised for. While this understandably caused some confusion, it did not change the substance of the outcome. I have found no evidence that this caused Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Decision

16. I find no fault with the Council’s actions relating to this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman