Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about contributions to the cost of adult social care and feeling threatened by the Council. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would find any significant fault by the Council. It is unlikely we would add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr B says that despite telling the Council he cannot afford his adult social care contributions, the Council came to his house and pressured him. Mr B says the Council made he and his father sign a document stating they would pay the full amount demanded before the Council would meet Mr B’s care needs. This badly affected Mr B’s mental health.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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))

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. The Council must meet Mr B’s eligible adult social care needs. The Council must also assess, what if anything, Mr B can afford to pay toward his care support.
7. The Council gives Mr B direct payments to arrange his own support. The Council has assessed and told Mr B what he must contribute toward his care. Mr B has told the Council he cannot afford it and did not pay his contribution. So, the Council met with Mr B to agree a way forward. Mr B thought this was a care review so was shocked when it was all about the finances.
8. Mr B is unhappy the Council said he must keep receipts and evidence his spending. The Council has a duty to protect the public purse and must audit direct payment accounts at least once a year. It is normal process to ask anyone receiving direct payments to keep receipts to evidence any spending paid from the direct payment account. It is also normal process for councils carrying out financial assessments to ask for receipts to prove any disability related expenditure, which might then be agreed and reduce the amount the person is assessed to pay.
9. Because Mr B did not pay his assessed contribution the Council said it may have to remove the direct payments and arrange other support to meet Mr B’s needs. This is normal process in accordance with the direct payment agreement. The Council asked Mr B and his father to sign a document confirming Mr B’s father had agreed to help Mr B pay his contributions so that he could continue with direct payments. If the full amount was not paid the direct payments would end and the Council would provide the support. The Council would review the care support and payments in three months. Mr B and his father signed the document under protest. The Council has apologised for the way this made Mr B feel but explained it must have difficult conversations with people about their care and support, and what it did enabled Mr B to keep the direct payments which he wanted.
10. Mr B says the Council reviewed matters before the three months and increased his contribution. The Council mismanaged Mr B’s expectations saying it would not review for three months. It seems likely there was a change of circumstances given the Council increased Mr B’s contribution. The Council has a duty to reassess when there is a change of circumstances.
11. The Council has given Mr B a thorough and thoughtful response to his complaint and I do not consider an Ombudsman investigation would add to that or reach a different outcome. I do not downplay how Mr B felt, but I do not find that was the Council’s intention.
12. Underlying this complaint is the fact Mr B finds his care contribution unaffordable. The Council has assessed Mr B’s contribution following relevant law, guidance, and policy. So, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the Council’s decision, even though Mr B is finding it hard to pay.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of faut causing a significant injustice. The Council has given a thorough response to the complaint, which it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add to or reach a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman