Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care plan because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council:
• reduced his care from 24-hour care to 12 hours daily and 9 hours sleep in care, leaving Mr Y without care for three hours overnight;
• failed to discuss the change in care with Mr Y, failed to respond to his emails and treated Mr Y abruptly on the phone; and
• changed the funding from a direct payment to a supported payment plan.
2. Mr Y says he is at risk of losing his carers as they are not being paid correctly and he is struggling with mentally due to the worry caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

4. 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

5. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Reduction in care package

6. The Council reassessed Mr Y’s care need in March 2023 and reviewed his needs in April. The needs assessment found that Mr Y’s needs remained the same.
7. However, the Council found Mr Y, who was receiving direct payments to fund his care, was paying carers for waking night care, rather than sleeping night care. The Council reassessed Mr Y’s risks at night and confirmed sleeping night care was sufficient to meet his needs and could be afforded with the existing level of direct payment.
8. There is no evidence of fault in how Council made this decision. Therefore, we cannot question the outcome.

The Council failed to discuss the change in care with Mr Y, failed to respond to his emails and treated Mr Y abruptly on the phone.

9. The Council’s complaint response refers to case notes, showing the issue was explained to Mr Y and at least one of his personal assistants. It responded to his communications either directly or through the complaint process. Following Mr Y’s complaint that an officer spoke to him abruptly on the telephone, the Council apologised. Further investigation is likely to find fault or achieve anything meaningful.

The Council changed the funding from a direct payment to a supported payment plan.

10. The Council says it altered Mr Y’s funding after it became aware that Mr Y was paying his personal assistants for more hours than were budgeted for and failing to pay their income tax as their employer. It says this had led to a substantial debt being owed to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC).
11. Councils must be satisfied the person can manage the direct payment and should take all reasonable steps to provide help and support to people to manage the direct payment. Direct payments can also be ended if the person is not capable of managing the payment even with support or is not using the funds to achieve the outcomes in the plan. 
12. In this case, the Council sought to support Mr Y by providing him with the flexibility and greater degree of choice of direct payments, instead of Council commissioned care, but is ensuring payments for care are made correctly through a pre-paid account. As it has explained its rationale for this, due to the debt owed to HMRC and overpayments made by Mr Y but has sought to balance Mr Y’s wishes of using direct payments, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman