Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council met Mrs X’s care needs after stopping her direct payments. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained on behalf of his wife, Mrs X. He said the Council failed to act in line with Mrs X’s dignity and religious beliefs when it stopped her direct payments and offered to provide care via a commissioned service. Mr X said the Council wrongly refused Mrs X a managed direct payment account due to an ongoing criminal investigation.
2. Mr X said the matter caused distress and uncertainty for both Mrs and Mr X, and impacted Mrs X’s dignity and wellbeing. He said the matter had also caused financial hardship through loss of Mr X’s wages as Mrs X’s carer. Mr X wanted the Council to apologise, arrange Mrs X’s care in line with her religious beliefs, confirm the outcome of the criminal investigation, reimburse them for lost direct payments and deliver staff training.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X received direct payments from the Council to commission her own care instead of receiving a commissioned care package directly from the Council. Mr X says he is Mrs X’s carer, and says their religious beliefs mean Mrs X could not receive personal care from anybody else.
7. In September 2025, the Council wrote to Mr and Mrs X explaining that it had cancelled Mrs X’s direct payments due to suspected fraudulent activity. It offered to assess Mrs X’s needs and to provide a commissioned service in the interim. It says Mrs X stated Mr X would meet her needs until the Council had completed a care assessment. The Council offered a commissioned service on further occasions, and this was ultimately arranged two weeks after direct payments had been cancelled. It declined Mr X’s request for a managed direct payment in the interim.
8. The Council is entitled to cancel direct payments, and decline to offer a managed direct payment, where fraudulent activity is suspected. It correctly offered a commissioned service to ensure Mrs X’s needs could be met until its decision could be reviewed. While the Council has a duty to give due regard to Mrs X’s religious beliefs, it is entitled to take necessary and proportionate action in certain circumstances despite the impact this may have on Mrs X’s ability to act on her beliefs. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and its decision was a temporary one that could be reviewed after assessing Mrs X’s needs and receiving an outcome from the police.
9. I have considered events up to the date Mr X complained to us only. At that time, the Council had begun the process of assessing Mrs X’s care needs. It agreed it would take Mrs X’s religious beliefs into account as part of this process. The police investigation remained ongoing.
10. If we investigated this complaint, there is nothing further we could achieve. It is for the police to tell Mrs and Mr X the outcome of its criminal investigation. The Council would then be responsible for telling them what impact this had on decisions around Mrs X’s direct payments. Any complaint Mrs and Mr X have about events after they complained to us would need to be raised as new complaints to the Council, and then us if necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we could not achieve anything meaningful by investigating. Any issues that occurred after the date Mr X complained to us should be raised via new complaints if necessary.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman