Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaints about the Council’s decision to reduce her care package, its failure to act on safeguarding referrals and that she was left without care for a period of time. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council:
• wrongly reduced her package of care which meant she could no longer manage her disabilities;
• left her without any care for a period of time;
• refused to agree it would increase her care package to meet her increased care needs following an operation she needs and
• failed to act on safeguarding referrals she says were made by third party organisations about her.
2. Ms X says that as a result, her health has deteriorated as she cannot have the operation and she has unmet needs.

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 how the organisation made its decision, 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 continue 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 the information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X has eligible care needs. She previously received 24 hours of care a week which she arranged herself and paid for using direct payments.
8. In July 2024, the Council carried out a care needs assessment. The assessor recommended Ms X’s care package was reduced.
9. Ms X complained and said the reduced care package was not enough to meet her eligible care needs and enable her to care for her dogs. The Council arranged for an independent assessor to reassess her. The independent assessor recommended Ms X’s care package was reduced from 24 hours a week to 15 hours a week. 5 hours of the reduced care package were for Ms X to pay for someone to walk her dogs.
10. Ms X complained to the Council about the issues in paragraph 1. The Council’s response included details of why Ms X’s care package had been reduced. It said it had ensured she would still be able to care for her dogs. The Council also said that it has advised her previously that once she had had her operation she would be assessed in hospital prior to her discharge to determine the level of support she needed.
11. The Council said it had not received any safeguarding referrals from anyone.
12. In relation to Ms X’s complaint that she had been left with no care when her personal assistant resigned, the Council said Ms X was responsible for arranging her care because she received direct payments. The Council reminded Ms X it has offered to commission her care for her but she had refused. It also said it had provided advice and guidance and made her five offers of care providers but Ms X had refused them.
13. The Council assessed Ms X in line with the Care Act 2014. When she complained about the proposed reduction in hours, it carried out an independent assessment. Both assessments recommended a reduction in hours and provided evidence-based reasoning for this recommendation, which explained how Ms X’s care needs, including looking after her dogs, could be met. There was no evidence of fault in how this decision was made or the rationale behind it. Therefore, we cannot criticise the decision itself.
14. Ms X receives direct payments. This means that she has responsibility for arranging and paying for her care. The Council must however still ensure that Ms X’s needs are being met. It has provided advice and support, found possible providers and offered to commission the care for her. Ms X has no obligation to accept any of these offers; however, the Council has taken appropriate steps to support Ms X and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
15. The Council has explained how it will determine what care Ms X needs after her operation. This is in line with what we would expect and there is no evidence of fault.
16. The Council says it has no record of any safeguarding referrals being made about Ms X. Without evidence to the contrary, we could not say the Council had acted with fault.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman