Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council provided contradictory information about his direct payment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council gave him contradictory information about how he could use his direct payments. He said it imposed restrictions without a reassessment of his needs. He said it also failed to uplift his budget to reflect rising care costs. He said the Council did not make reasonable adjustments for his Autism and neurodivergent needs.
2. He said the Council’s actions had caused severe distress, financial uncertainty and affected his ability to plan respite. He wants the Council to reinstate flexible direct payments, increase his budget to reflect minimum wage increases and to confirm it does not intend to claw back historic spending. He also wants an apology and a financial remedy for any distress caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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
• 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X receives direct payments. He uses these to employ a personal assistant. His partner, Mr Y, supports him as an informal carer.
9. Mr X complained to the Council at the start of 2024 that it had changed how he could use his direct payment for respite. He also complained about the conduct of a social worker.
10. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in April 2024. In that it:
• Apologised for the conduct of the social worker. It said it would bring Mr X’s concerns to their attention.
• Explained Mr X could use his direct payment to access accommodation away from Mr Y, to provide him a break from his informal caring role. It said it could not be used to fund accommodation for Mr X and Mr Y to go away together.
• Said it had agreed some historic direct payment spending but had decided Mr X needed a new support plan to clearly document what the direct payment was for.
• Said it had treated Mr X fairly and equitably and had not discriminated against him.
11. Following that complaint response, the Council met with Mr X in June 2024, to go through its complaint response. In that meeting it recognised difficulties his experienced as a Neurodivergent adult and agreed to pass his comments onto senior management.
12. Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage two in March 2025. The Council sent a further complaint response. It maintained its initial findings but again apologised for the negative impact from the social workers visit. Mr X brought his complaint to the ombudsman in July 2025.
13. Although Mr X remains unhappy with the Council’s response, we will not investigate. We expect a person to complain to us within twelve months of becoming aware of a matter. That means events that occurred before July 2024 such as the social workers conduct are late. There is no good reason to exercise discretion and investigate this now.
14. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how he can use his direct payment. The Council reviewed Mr X’s support plan, considered his complaint and provided advice about how he could use his direct payments. It has confirmed it needs to be used to meet his needs as set out in the support plan. It has explained how he can use it for respite. There is nothing to suggest the Council has applied its policy on direct payments differently to Mr X or not considered his needs when it has communicated with him. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
15. In response to our enquiries, the Council confirmed it had increased Mr X’s direct payment in line with increases in minimum wage. However, it said it had not reflected that uplift in Mr X’s support plan. It has stated it will now do that. We will not investigate this complaint further. There is nothing to suggest the Council’s actions have caused a significant injustice, and it has taken corrective action. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman