Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s adult social care department. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council left her without care for 45 days when she moved house. She said the Council ignored recent assessments and her care history and prioritised cost over assessed need. Miss X said this left her in unsafe conditions and it has had a negative impact on her health. She would like to remain with her current care provider and compensation for harm she has suffered.

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. (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 Miss X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X complained the Council did not consider recent care assessments, and left her without her appropriate care.
6. In its complaint response, the Council told Miss X that care provided during the transition period in her new home was provided by another Council. It advised Miss X that her complaint about care during this period should be shared with the Council that funded the care.
7. In its complaint response, the Council told Miss X that it could not commission her existing care provider because they were not on the Council’s framework of care providers. The Council also said it had considered Miss X’s wishes and how to use public funds to achieve best value when deciding Miss X’s social care provision.
8. In response to enquiries, the Council said it had repeatedly offered Miss X a level of care which was in line with her needs assessment completed by the Council at her previous address. The Council said Miss X had chosen not to take up this offer of care and had refused to allow carers access to her home.
9. The Council said it had offered to carry out a new care assessment for Miss X on a number of occasions. A care assessment took place with Miss X in May 2026. The Council offered Miss X a package of care with one of their framework providers, based on the outcome of the care assessment. The Council also offered to establish Direct Payments for Miss X, if she did not want to receive care from one of their framework providers.
10. In response to enquiries, the Council said it had reviewed safeguarding referrals and determined that concerns raised did not meet the criteria under the Care Act. It said concerns raised in safeguarding referrals were more appropriately addressed through the provision of care and encouraged Miss X to engage with the Care Act process.
11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Council offered Miss X support to meet the level of need assessed by her previous Council. The Council completed a care assessment and then offered Miss X options on how she could access care within her home. The Council also concluded that safeguarding referrals did not meet the criteria and encouraged Miss X to engage with the Care Act process.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman