Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reduce a package of care including direct payments to Mr X to assist with his children’s care needs. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation, and it would not achieve anything worthwhile now.

The complaint

1. Mr X has 3 children with disabilities. Mr X says the Council decided to decrease funding, which facilitated a carer and extra-curricular activities for the children. It also stopped respite support for two of his children. Mr X says the Council’s decision has caused his family distress and without the assistance of a carer, he may have to give up work to become a full time carer for his children. He also says the Council has not considered his wife’s medical needs as part of its assessment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is no worthwhile outcome achievable from an investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. I have considered the Council’s explanation of how it assessed the children’s needs. It held a panel meeting which considered the views and professional opinions of a social worker and various health professionals involved with the children. It considered medical reports. Mr and Mrs X were also given the opportunity to provide their views, which were presented to the panel. The Council explained that it was content the children had made good progress, and it therefore considered the level of support the children required was lower than it had been previously. It was on this basis it decided to reduce the financial and respite support to the family.
7. I understand Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. However, the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the way the Council made its decision. In this case I do not consider there is enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to justify an investigation.
8. Mr X says the Council has not considered his wife’s deteriorating medical condition, and removal of respite support will put the family under strain. However, a disabled child’s assessment is made based on a child’s disability and needs. The Council also says it offered Mr and Mrs X a carer’s assessment, but they declined. It is unlikely we would find fault in how the Council considered the family’s circumstances.
9. It is also the case the family moved to a different council area just before they complained to this Council. Before that the Council had reported an underspend of Direct Payments, and it closed the account when the family moved. It was then for the council in the area where they moved to decide what services to provide, and there is no provision to transfer any unspent Direct Payments. So an investigation of this Council could now achieve nothing worthwhile.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant it and it could not achieve anything worthwhile in any event.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman