Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care respite provision, because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating further. The Council communicated it was sourcing a respite placement and that it could not fund the complainants preferred location, placement X. There was no delay by the Council in sourcing respite. The complainant made an informed decision to make a private arrangement with placement X.

The complaint

1. Mr B says he needed a respite placement for his wife, Mrs C, to give him a break from his caring role. Mr B paid for Mrs C to go into respite as he was desperate and could not cope. The Council will not refund him and Mr B feels let down.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council is responsible to meet Mrs C’s care and support needs under the Care Act 2014, and to meet Mr B’s needs as a carer. The Council has a care and support plan for Mrs C, which included residential respite stays to give Mr B a break from his caring role.
6. Mr B contacted the Council asking it to arrange a respite break as soon as possible as he was at the end of his tether. Mr B asked about placement X, but the Council explained as it was outside the Council’s borough this was not a placement it could fund. The Council would look for a suitable placement in borough and would contact Mr B in two days. The Council told Mr B to contact its emergency duty team if matters got worse in the meantime.
7. The Council contacted Mr B two days later, as agreed. Mr B had already placed Mrs C at placement X and had not contacted the Council again in the meantime. The Council confirmed to Mr B that was a private arrangement outside Mrs C’s care and support plan, so Mr B would need to fund it privately.
8. There is no evidence of fault by the Council. The Council was sourcing a respite placement for Mrs C in accordance with her care and support plan, and its records show it clearly communicated to Mr B what it was doing. There was no delay by the Council and it contacted Mr B when it said it would. But Mr B had already made his own arrangements.
9. Mr B made an informed decision to arrange a private placement at his preferred location, knowing the Council would not fund that placement.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify further investigation, and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman