Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reduce a care and support package. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has reduced her adult daughter, Ms Y’s, care and support package and the revised funding does not fully cover the cost of their preferred day service. She says this is discriminatory and causing financial loss for the family. She wants the Council to reinstate its previous level of support and fully fund their preferred day service.

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. Ms Y is an adult with care and support needs. In 2023, the Council decided to end its contract with Ms Y’s day service (provider A). In light of this decision, it reviewed Ms Y’s care and support package. It offered Ms Y an alternative day service (provider B) that had agreed it could meet her needs. Ms X told the Council she wanted Ms Y to continue to attend provider A. The Council agreed to convert Ms Y’s revised personal budget to a direct payment, so Ms X could use this to either pay for provider B or use it towards payment for Ms Y to continue to attend provider A (which was a higher cost).
7. In her complaint to us, Ms X states provider B cannot meet Ms Y’s needs and she believes the Council is discriminating against Ms Y. She says the direct payment does not cover the cost of provider A and this is causing financial strain on her family.
8. We will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault. It is for the Council to decide which services it commissions and so it is unlikely an investigation would find fault in its decision to end the contract with provider A. Provider B told the Council it could meet Ms Y’s needs and although provider B has a higher ratio of service users to staff than provider A, the Council considered this as part of its review. It concluded the level of support at provider B was sufficient to meet Ms Y’s needs and did not put Ms Y at increased risk. I have seen no evidence of discrimination in how the Council reached its decisions. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman