Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reduce Mrs Y’s care package. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision-making, and insufficient evidence of a significant injustice, to warrant investigation by us.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council reduced her mother’s (Mrs Y’s) care package from 70 to 55 hours weekly, despite Mrs Y’s needs having increased. Mrs X said her sibling, who was Mrs Y’s main carer, had their own support needs and Mrs X was concerned about both family members being at risk of neglect. She wanted the Council to reinstate Mrs Y’s care package of 70 hours a week.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X’s complaint raises concerns the Council has reduced Mrs Y’s care package despite Mrs Y’s needs having increased. Mrs X is concerned about risk this could pose to Mrs Y and Mrs X’s sibling (Mrs Y’s main carer with whom she lives).
6. The Council assessed Mrs Y’s needs and found the care package she received exceeded the tasks carers were carrying out. The Council carried out an analysis of the schedule of care tasks including Mrs X and the main carer. It also ensured 15 hours’ respite was included for Mrs X’s sibling. The Council decided there was not sufficient justification for maintaining the previous level of support. There is insufficient evidence of fault in this approach as the Council has clearly set out the reasoning for its decision.
7. Mrs X’s concerns relate to risk of harm, rather than Mrs Y having experienced a detriment due to the Council’s decision. There is therefore also insufficient evidence of a significant injustice to Mrs Y that would warrant further investigation by the Ombudsman. Should evidence arise to suggest Mrs Y’s needs are not being met with the reduced care package, or Mrs X’s sibling is not coping in their caring role, Mrs X should notify the Council so that it can reassess the situation.
8. Mrs X’s complaint included the Council’s suggestion Mrs Y could have respite in a residential home while Mrs X’s sibling undergoes necessary treatment. Mrs X says this is not in Mrs X’s best interests as moving her could cause confusion given her dementia. However, this option would provide relief for Mrs X’s sibling from their caring duties and where other options are not possible, it remains an option for the family to consider. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to offer this option to the family.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making, and insufficient evidence of a significant injustice, to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman