Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not providing him with the care and support he feels he needs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council is not providing him with the care and support he feels he needs. Mr X considers he needs a carer to meet his care needs.

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))
3. 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

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. Mr X has an acquired brain injury. Mr X says because of this injury, he has care and support needs. Mr X wants the Council to provide him with a carer to help meet these needs.
7. The Council completed a care assessment in March 2023. As a result of this assessment, the Council provided funding for an annual gym membership and one hour of support each week for helping Mr X with his mail and correspondence. The Council also referred Mr X to the maximising independence service for further assessment.
8. The Council confirmed this service was independent of adult social care and would provide an independent perspective regarding Mr X’s care and support needs. The worker from maximising independence worked with Mr X between June and August 2023.
9. In September 2023, the Council completed a further care assessment following the report submitted by the worker from maximising independence. Within this assessment, the social worker highlighted the evidence obtained by the maximising independence worker showed that Mr X could physically manage his day-to-day care and support. The care assessment referred to the evidence gathered during Mr X’s one to one sessions with maximising independence to support this decision.
10. The Council did find Mr X needed support still with managing his correspondence and paperwork. However, the Council was satisfied this need could be managed with the use of technology. The Council outlined the various technology identified and detailed how it would help. The Council provided funding to ensure the technology could be purchased.
11. The care assessment also highlighted and recognised Mr X needed support for his mental health to help him work on his lack of motivation to complete tasks. The Council referred Mr X to the relevant mental health trust, which offered Mr X services, but the Council said Mr X declined this.
12. An investigation is not justified because we are unlikely to find fault. This is because the Ombudsman cannot find fault with a decision unless there was fault in the way the decision was made.
13. In this case, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council completed its care assessment. The records showed the care assessment was thorough and properly considered all the evidence, including that provided by the report by the independent maximising independence worker. The Council has also provided a rationale for its decision that Mr X’s needs can be met using technology, rather than there being a need for a carer to be provided. As the Council has properly considered all relevant evidence, it is entitled to reach its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman