Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Council decision that it no longer considers a person suitable to manage his relative’s direct payment. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about a Council decision to remove Mr Z as the suitable person managing his relative, Mr Y’s adult social care direct payment. He says he has been told different reasons for this decision and the matter has caused distress. He also complains about poor complaints handling. He wants the Council to reinstate Mr Z as the suitable person.

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
• 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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Direct payments are monetary payments made to individuals who ask for them to meet some or all of their eligible care and support needs. They enable people to arrange their own care and support to meet those needs. Where the person is unable to manage the direct payment themselves, councils may agree to pay the direct payment to a suitable person who will manage the direct payment on their behalf. Councils must agree the nominated person is suitable.
7. Mr Z has managed Mr Y’s direct payment for several years as the appointed suitable person. In 2024, the Council reviewed Mr Y’s direct payment arrangements. It decided Mr Z was no longer suitable for this role.
8. Mr X was unhappy with this decision and complained to the Council. In its complaint response, the Council explained why it had reached its decision. It accepted the reasons officers had initially given Mr X had not been entirely accurate. It apologised to him for this.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. It is for the Council to decide whether a person is suitable to manage a direct payment. The Council has reviewed Mr Y’s arrangement, decided Mr Z is no longer suitable and explained its reasons to Mr X. There is insufficient evidence of fault in this decision to warrant an investigation.
10. The Council has acknowledged officers initially gave Mr X inaccurate information. It apologised for this, which is an appropriate remedy for any distress caused. An investigation would be unlikely to reach a different outcome or achieve anything more.
11. Mr X also complains about poor complaints handling. We will not investigate this as it is not a good use of our resources to consider complaints about complaint handling where we decide not to investigate the substantive matter.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and it is unlikely an investigation would achieve anything more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman