Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council cutting the payments she received as a shared lives carer without telling her the reasons why. This is because the faults accepted did not cause any significant injustice. In addition, we are not likely to find fault as the Council is paying in line with its scheme.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council cut the payments she received as a shared lives carer without telling her the reasons why. She says the Council broke the carer agreement and this resulted in her not being paid for services delivered. She also complains the Council failed to respond to safeguarding concerns she raised about a service user.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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

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. Miss X is a shared lives carer for two individuals. She says the Council reduced the payments she received for her services without providing any reasons for why.
6. In its complaint response, the Council explained why the payments had been reduced. The Council said:
• Its shared lives payment scheme allowed for a maximum of five days care payments per week for long term placements. Care payments are only paid Monday to Friday and are only paid on days when the person is not attending day services.
• It made a mistake with Miss X’s payments as it paid her for seven days at the start of the placement.
• It reduced the payment to five days when the service user began attending days services two days a week. Payment was further reduced to three days when the Council identified the original mistake of overpaying by two days.
• Night payments were removed from the Council’s payment scheme for new long-term placements in January 2024. This was because shared lives carers are not expected to routinely meet overnight needs. On its previous payment scheme, night payment was paid at a rate of £42.98 per week.
• The Council made a mistake where it paid Miss X a night payment and paid her the weekly rate on a nightly basis. i.e. instead of receiving £42.98 per week, the Council paid this per night.
• The Council said it had agreed to continue to pay Miss X the weekly night payment until a care needs reassessment was completed for the service user. Once the reassessment was completed, the Council would remove this payment.
7. The Council accepted significant mistakes were made around Miss X’s payments for her shared lives placement. The Council also acknowledged it made changes to her payments when the mistakes were identified without explaining to Miss X the reasons for the reductions. The Council apologised for this.
8. The Council also accepted it delayed in issuing the individual arrangement agreements for each service user. The Council says this has now been completed and the weekly payments being made are in line with its current shared lives payment scheme.
9. An investigation is not justified as the accepted fault has not caused any significant injustice. The Council has acknowledged it made mistakes with Miss X’s original payments as it had paid her for more than it should have for the placements. Therefore, Miss X financial benefited from the mistake.
10. The Council has now corrected its mistakes, which has resulted in Miss X’s payments being reduced to the correct level. We are not likely to find fault with this as the Council is allowed to pay in line with its shared lives payment scheme.
11. Miss X also complained the Council failed to respond to her safeguarding concerns which she raised for one of the service users. However, this complaint is premature to us because the Council has not yet had the opportunity to respond to this complaint. It is open to Miss X to make the complaint to the Council to allow it to investigate and respond.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the faults accepted did not cause any significant injustice. In addition, we are not likely to find fault as the Council is paying in line with its scheme.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman