The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained the Council reduced his daughter’s one-to-one activity support hours and failed to inform him it had done so. The Council was not at fault.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council reduced his daughter’s, Miss Y, one-to-one activity support hours and failed to inform him it had done so. He says since 2000, the Council had funded 30 hours per week for one-to-one activity support however in 2019, it reduced it to 22.5 hours per week. This left Mr X concerned she was not receiving sufficient activity support. He wants the Council to fund 30 hours of one-to-one support.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I spoke with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
I considered the information provided by the Council including annual reviews of Miss Y’s care and support needs.
Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.
What I found
The Care Act 2014 The Care Act 2014 gives councils a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan. The care and support plan should consider what the person has, what they want to achieve, what they can do by themselves or with existing support and what care and support may be available in the local area.
Section 27 of the Care Act 2014 says councils should keep care and support plans under review. Government Care and Support Statutory Guidance says councils should review plans at least every 12 months.
What happened Mr X has an adult child, Miss Y, who has complex health needs. Miss Y has lived in a nursing home since 2000. As part of Miss Y’s care package, she receives allocated hours of one-to-one activity support. This is to support Miss Y with engaging with community activities such as going to the local shops, day trips and with accessing hydrotherapy sessions. Since 2000, the Council and the Care Provider had agreed to provide Miss Y with 30 hours of one-to-one activity support per week.
Mr X said in February 2019, the Council reduced the number of one-to-one activity support hours from 30 hours per week to 22.5 hours per week. Mr X contacted the Council as he was concerned his daughter’s needs were not being met with the reduced hours of support. He was also unhappy the Council did not properly make him aware of this change.
The Council responded to Mr X. It said although Miss Y’s one-to-one activity support hours had changed, it was satisfied the Care Provider was able to meet Miss Y’s needs including her social and activity needs, with the current package of care. It said if it had identified Miss Y’s needs were not being met with the current package of care, it would address the matter to meet her needs. The Council said the additional 7.5 hours were not required to meet Miss Y’s needs and paying the Care Provider for additional hours which were not required, would not be an effective use of public money.
In addition, the Council had met with Mr X in June 2021 to discuss his concerns. At the meeting, the Council said it would review Miss Y’s care and support needs every year to ensure her needs were being met. The Council noted during the meeting, Mr X did not identify the current care package was not meeting Miss Y’s needs.
Mr X attended an annual review meeting for Miss Y’s care and support needs in July 2021. The Council noted during the annual review meeting, Mr X did not say the current care package was not meeting Miss Y’s needs. The annual review meeting record stated, “[Mr X] has always been happy about the care that the Care Provider is providing to [Miss Y] and there has not been any questions about the quality of care”.
During the annual review meeting, the Council recognised it did not properly inform Mr X of changes to the one-to-one activity support hours. It agreed with Mr X that going forward, it would contact Mr X to discuss any changes to Miss Y’s care and support needs.
Mr X remained unhappy and complained to us. As part of my investigation, I spoke with Mr X. He said he had no concerns with the quality of care including the activity support which was being delivered to Miss Y.
The Council also provided me with copies of Miss Y’s annual review documents which showed it reviewed her care and support needs in July 2020 and again in July 2021. Furthermore, the Council provided me with a copy of Miss Y’s activity timetable with a diary of activities the Care Provider had supported Miss Y with. It showed Miss Y had taken part in a variety of activities.
Findings
The Ombudsman’s role is to review how councils have made decisions. We do not make decisions on a council’s behalf or offer a right of appeal against their decisions. We cannot criticise a council’s decision where it has been made properly, and nor can we uphold a complaint simply because a person disagrees with what a council has done.
The Council reviewed Miss Y’s care package and along with the Care Provider, was satisfied they could meet Miss Y’s activity support needs with 22.5 hours per week. I have reviewed Miss Y’s annual review documents since Miss Y’s activity support hours changed and there is no evidence which indicates Miss Y’s needs are not being met. The Council was not at fault.
In addition, although Mr X remains unhappy with the Council’s decision to change the number of allocated hours, he has not expressed how or where Miss Y’s needs are not being met and remains satisfied with the support provided at the Nursing Home. The Council’s decision did not cause significant injustice to Mr X or Miss Y.
Mr X said he was unhappy that the Council did not inform him of the changes it made to Miss Y’s one-to-one activity support hours. The Council may not have specifically told Mr X it had reduced the number of allocated hours however, Mr X was present at the annual review meetings. There is no evidence which indicates Mr X was unhappy with the care and support being delivered to Miss Y. In any case, the Council agreed with Mr X in the future it would consult with him in relation to any changes to Miss Y’s care and support needs.
Final decision
I have now completed my investigation. There was no fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman