Summary: Mr X complained of a contractual dispute between his care company and the Council. Mr X also complained the Council failed to safeguard, communicate and complete care reviews for service users. I have ended this investigation as the courts are best placed to consider contractual matters. The remaining part of the complaint has not caused Mr X a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained of a contractual dispute between his care company and the Council. Mr X also complained the Council failed to safeguard, communicate and complete care reviews for service users.
2. He said the Council has asked his company to provide more support than it is being paid for and this is below the Council’s advertised rate. Mr X would like for the Council to review the contract and its payments.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. Mr X is a director of a company which provides care services on behalf of the Council. The courts awarded Mr X a written contract with the Council following a judicial review but this has since expired.
7. In October 2024, Mr X raised a complaint with the Council for not increasing the company’s funding since 2022. Mr X said the Council’s payments were only marginally more than what they were in 2012. Mr X also complained the Council failed to safeguard, communicate and complete care reviews for service users.
8. The Council issued a complaint response in February 2025. It did not uphold his complaint about funding increases as it said the company had not requested fee uplifts for the past two financial years. The Council also said there were two opportunities to join its dynamic purchasing system for automatic fee uplifts and it had not done so. It upheld some elements of his complaint relating to service users. This was predominantly around communication.
9. Mr X requested the Council consider his complaint at stage two of the complaints process. The Council did not consider it at stage two as it said it had thoroughly investigated the complaint already to a proportionate level.
10. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the matter and complained to us.

My findings

11. Mr X complained about contractual and funding disputes between his company and the Council. I have not investigated this because it is reasonable for Mr X to take the matter to court, and the courts are better placed to consider such matters.
12. The remaining matters of Mr X’s complaint relates to Council actions which have affected service users and their families. The Council’s actions have not caused Mr X a significant personal injustice. Therefore, I have not investigated this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council’s actions are either not separable from a matter that should be raised in court, or do not cause Mr X a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman