Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not listening to Ms X’s son’s wishes for her to be his main carer, and to pay her long term for the care and support she provides to her son. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council is not listening to her son’s wishes for her to be his main carer. She wants the Council to agree to pay her long term for the care and support she provides to her son. She also complains the Council has not been able to find any suitable alternative care options.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X’s son, Mr A, has care and support needs. Ms X is currently providing care and support to Mr A.
6. The Council’s direct payments policy notes that direct payments cannot be used to pay a family member living in the household for care to meet the adult’s needs. The policy notes that only in exceptional circumstances should direct payments be agreed to be used to pay a family member living in the same household as the adult.
7. In July 2022, the Council held a best interest meeting and agreed for Ms X to be paid to care for Mr A through direct payments for two months. This is evidence the Council has showed consideration to Mr A’s wishes. The Council confirmed this was not a long-term solution.
8. An investigation is not justified as we are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decision not to agree to pay Ms X to care for Mr A long term. This is because it is clear the Council’s policy does not allow for this arrangement unless there are exceptional circumstances.
9. Further, an investigation is not likely to find fault with the Council regarding the actions taken to source an alternative package of care for Mr A. This is because the Council has suggested numerous options to Ms X, including: This includes:
• For Ms X to be employed by an agency, and for the agency to pay her. Ms X declined this option as she considered it would be too much pressure as she would need to provide a weekly written record of the hours worked.
• For a care agency to be commissioned. Ms X declined this option as she did not want unfamiliar people supporting Mr A.
• Overnight respite. Ms X told the Council Mr A would not want to go anywhere other than his own home. Council also suggested Mr A receive overnight care within the family home to allow Ms X to have a break. Ms X declined this as she explained she would not have anywhere to go.
• For Ms X to work with the Council to identify suitable personal assistants or care agencies who have capacity to support Mr A.
10. The Council also confirmed it would continue to work with Ms X to consider creative ways to support her in her care of Mr A. Therefore, the evidence shows the Council is taking appropriate action to try and secure alternative care, but that it is respecting Ms X’s wishes not to put in place the options she is not happy with.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman