Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council wrongly stopped his mother’s care. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council wrongly stopped his mother, Mrs M’s, care.
2. Mr X says that as a result, he has been impacted financially and he was caused stress and worry.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. In August 2022, following an urgent needs assessment, Mrs M began to receive a package of care in her home. Mrs M was also referred to telecare and a medication reminder clock was installed.
8. Mrs M’s social worker visited the following month to review the package of care. She observed Mrs M meeting her own care needs independently. Mrs M also said she was able to cope on her own although she struggled with her eye drops.
9. The social worker told Mrs M she did not qualify for long term care because she did not have enough eligible needs. She advised Mrs M on how to source private care if she wanted assistance with her with her eye drops and other medication. Mrs M’s package of care continued for the meantime.
10. In October the social worker visited to further discuss ending Mrs M’s package of care. Mrs M again said she was happy for the care package to end because she could manage her own needs and the social worker observed her take her medication when prompted by the clock. The social worker telephoned Mrs M a week later to confirm the package would end and also called Mr X to discuss this. Mr X agreed that the care should end.
11. Mr X emailed the social worker the same day to say he had changed his mind about the care ending as Mrs M was forgetting to take some medication. The social worker provided the details of the care provider Mrs M had been using to provide care privately.
12. In January 2023, another social worker visited Mrs M and decided she was eligible for care. Her care package restarted.
13. In its complaint response to Mr X, the Council said that it had reviewed the care provider’s daily records. These indicated Mrs M was already up, washed and dressed when they arrived, and was able to make her own hot meals. The Council said Mrs M’s abilities had deteriorated between October and January which was why the package restarted. It did not uphold Mr X’s complaint and so he complained to us.
14. We are not an appeal body. Our role is to consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. In this case, the social worker visited Mrs M, discussed her needs and assessed her as not being eligible under the Care Act for long term support. She provided Mrs M with details of how to source private care and did not stop the care immediately but visited a second time to assess the situation. When the care stopped she called Mrs M to make sure she was managing her needs. Mrs M agreed that the package should end and there is no indication she did not have capacity to make this decision. The fact the care package started again three months later, does not mean there was any fault in the original decision-making.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr 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