Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to stop Ms X’s package of care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s decision to stop her package of care. She is unhappy the Council allocated a student social worker to complete her assessment.
2. Ms X said her care needs had not changed since 2022. She is seeking:
• a care package that includes 10 hours of weekly support; and
• the allocation of a qualified social worker to compete her assessment.

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.

(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 provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In September 2023, the Council assessed Ms X’s care needs and found she was no longer eligible for support. The Council reduced her package of care to 5 hours per week.
8. We have previously issued a decision on the Council’s September assessment of Ms X’s care needs. We will not consider Ms X’s complaint about this further.
9. The Council reassessed Ms X’s care needs in March 2024. It found Ms X did not have eligible care needs. It decided to end her support package. The Council assessed Ms X as needing mental health support, so made a referral to the appropriate service. It decided not to withdraw the social care support it was providing immediately, but left this in place during the transition process.
10. Ms X complained the Council had not assessed her care needs properly. She is unhappy with its decision to stop her package of care.
11. As part of the Council’s March reassessment of Ms X’s adult social care needs it spoke to Ms X and the Care Provider.
12. The Council assessed Ms X as not meeting the eligibility criteria for social care support as she could sufficiently support herself with personal care, maintaining nutrition and accessing the community with her family.
13. 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 processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
14. In this case, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision- making process. The Council assessed Ms X’s needs in line with the Care and Support Regulations; it used a qualified Social Worker to complete the review it set out its reasons why Ms X was not eligible for care and made referrals for appropriate support.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman