Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions regarding direct payments for care to Mr X’s late mother. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council decided to stop direct payments and offer commissioned care to warrant our further involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of his late mother, Mrs Y, and on his own behalf.
   he says the Council carried out a review that was not transparent in January 2025 and made a decision about Mrs Y’s care that did not accord with her wish that he should provide her care and administer direct payments.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who has died or who cannot authorise someone to act for them. The complaint may be made by:

• their personal representative (if they have one), or
• someone we consider to be suitable. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(2) and 34C(2))
   

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Documents Mr X provided show the Council reached the view in 2025 that there was evidence Mr X was misusing direct payments for his mother, Mrs Y’s care. Internal emails he obtained show the Council took the view there had been multiple unexplained transfers of funds. I have seen no evidence that its position changed. The Council decided to offer commissioned care rather than direct payments. It could do that. It could also contact any relevant agencies, although it has denied contacting the department for Work and Pensions. Given its concerns, it also did not have to respect Mrs Y’s apparent wish that Mr X should provide her care and administer direct payments while living at the same address. Her mental capacity would not be relevant to that decision. I note Mrs Y and Mr X decided to refuse commissioned care. I also note the Council has offered to place Mr X’s version of events on its records.
7. The statutory adult social care complaint process has only a single stage. While Mr X complains of delay by the Council in issuing a further response, it did not have to do so. Therefore, even if we were investigating the substantive matters above, we would not find any fault with the Council’s complaint handling causing Mr X injustice. We could not in any case remedy any injustice to the late Mrs Y.
8. The Council’s response to a subject access request by Mr X is a matter the Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with than us.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman