Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about uplifting fees to a care provider for the service it provides on behalf of the Council to meet an adult’s social care needs. Although the Council did not tell the complainant how to appeal, that does not solely cause the claimed injustice of missing a review of the decision. The Care Provider’s actions also contributed as when it asked to challenge, the Council had set its budget for the year. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council failed to send its decision about annual uplift on a contract Ms B’s company is providing to the same e-mail address she sent her enquiry from. This meant Ms B did not receive it until she chased for a response. The Council also failed to explain how to challenge its decision, and when Ms B asked to challenge, she was told it was too late. This leaves the company Ms B works for providing a service at a loss which is not sustainable, and she wants the Council to consider the request for an uplift to the fees.

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:

• any fault has not caused significant enough injustice to the person who complained, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

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. The company Ms B works for acts on behalf of the Council in meeting social care needs of an adult. In March 2024 Ms B contacted the Council to ask about increasing its fees for the next year. The Council responded in April but not to Ms B’s e-mail address, it sent its decision to another area of Ms B’s company, and this was not forwarded to Ms B.
7. We cannot say it was fault of the Council to send its correspondence about finances to the company’s income team. Ms B does not say there was an agreement to only communicate with her or to copy all correspondence to her.
8. Ms B eventually received the Council’s decision in May 2024 and around seven weeks later asked how to appeal the Council’s decision not to increase the fees. The Council said it was now too late as it had settled its budget for this year.
9. The Council accepted it had not given any information on how to appeal its decision and said it would improve future communications.
10. Although there has been fault in the communication, I am not satisfied this is the sole reason for the situation Ms B finds herself, or that I could say the outcome would be any different if the Council had explained any options to challenge its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because the Council’s actions are not the sole reason for the claimed injustice, the actions of Ms B and the company she works for also contributed. It is unlikely we would add to the Council’s response or achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman