Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s actions regarding her respite care arrangements. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, having caused a significant enough injustice to Ms B to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. The Council has amended its policy for the purpose of clarity. It is unlikely any further investigation by the Ombudsman could achieve a different outcome of the kind Ms B wants.

The complaint

1. Ms B says as a Shared Lived Carer the Council should agree to pay her for respite care when she arranged to take an emergency break to be with a friend who was ill. Ms B says the policy was not clear and she should be paid the £50 respite allowance. In addition, Ms B feels she is undervalued as a Shared Lives Carer.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I discussed the concerns with Ms B and considered the information and documentation she provided. I sent Ms B a copy of my draft decision for comment.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms B says she requested a nights respite allowance on 22 June when she wanted to go away for the weekend with a friend who was ill. Ms B says two of her clients were with their families, so she needed respite for her third client, Ms C for one night. Ms B’s approved secondary carer said she could provide care for Ms C but only in her own home, not in Ms B’s home as the policy states. Ms B applied for paid respite but the Council refused.
5. The respite policy says all Shared Lives Carers are entitled to 4 weeks paid respite and it is expected that request are made 6-8 weeks in advance.
6. The policy says Shared Lives Carers are free to use an approved secondary carer to enable the service user to stay at home.
7. The policy says Shared Lives Carer must discuss all respite arrangements with their Placement Officer in the first instance.
8. The policy allows for provision of respite in the clients own home and in emergency in the secondary carers own home, it states:

‘this is not an automatic right for carers to use their secondary carers in this way however, it is an agreement that can be discussed and made if it is felt it best meets the service users and carers needs in a safe manner’.

9. The Council says it received a request from Ms B on 22 June for respite the following day 23 June. It said there was no notice given for respite care, Ms B did not make an ‘on scheme’ request for a secondary carer, or have the arrangement agreed as stated in the policy. It said in this instance the request was an unfounded arrangement and refused to pay for respite.
10. The Council explained ‘emergency situations are classed as serious, unexpected and often dangerous requiring immediate attention and not necessarily a ‘holiday in Wales with a friend’. It agreed the policy should be amended to advise of this and amended its policy accordingly.
11. The policy clearly explained the process for arranging respite care including arrangements when there is an emergency. It says all respite arrangements must be discussed with the Placement Officer in the first instance. The Council says Ms B’s request did not meet the threshold for an emergency and clarified what to do in an emergency when it updated its policy.
12. Ms B still has her allocated respite entitlement and the Council has amended the policy to clearly explain what should happen in an emergency. Although Ms B says she was not clear about the criteria for an emergency the Council says a holiday with a friend would not be classed as one. The Ombudsman could not say there is any administrative fault with the actions taken by the Council when refusing payment for respite on this occasion.
13. Ms B says she felt undervalued and unappreciated by her Placement Officer and staff in the Council. The Council apologised for comments made which caused Ms B offence. The Ombudsman is satisfied an apology remedies any injustice caused by the remarks.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault, having caused a significant enough injustice to Ms B to warrant an Ombudsman investigation

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman