Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the outcome of an adult social care assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained on behalf of her son, Mr Y. She said the Council had not properly assessed his adult social care needs and had failed to make reasonable adjustments for him. She said it had also transferred his case from the Learning Disability Team to a generic social care team. Mrs X said the lack of support had placed her at risk of carers burnout. She wants the Council to allocate a worker to Mr Y with experience in Autism to support him to become more independent.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
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))

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 Y receives three hours a week adult social care support through direct payments. He uses this to employ a personal assistant to provide support with social activities.
7. At the start of 2024, the Council met with Mrs X and Mr Y to complete an annual care assessment review. The Council also completed a one-to-one meeting with Mr Y. Mrs X said the new assessment did not fully reflect Mr Y’s needs. The Council met with Mrs X and Mr Y to discuss the areas of disagreement. It added additional comments provided by Mrs X to the assessment. It assessed Mr Y as still needing three hours of weekly support.
8. Although Ms X is unhappy with the Council’s assessment, we will not investigate this complaint. The Council has gathered information from Mrs X and Mr Y in completing its review. It said the review reflected Mr Y’s wishes on the support he received. There is not enough evidence of fault in how it completed the assessment to justify our involvement.
9. The Council suggested Mr Y could change the support he received from his personal assistant to better meet his needs. It said that would help promote his independence and lessen his reliance on Mrs X. It also offered to refer Mr Y for employment related support if needed. There is not enough evidence of how the Council has considered how Mr X’s support needs are met to justify our involvement.
10. The Council said it had transferred Mr Y to a generic locality team as he did not have a diagnosed learning disability. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.
11. There were delays in the Council completing Mr Y’s annual review. The Council has apologised for this. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
12. There is nothing to suggest Mrs X or Mr Y has complained to the Council that it has failed to make reasonable adjustments for him. They would need to exhaust the Council’s complaint process before we would consider the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman