Decision Date: 19th March 2025
Summary
The complaint concerned the Council’s refusal to provide direct payments which covered care for Mr Z whilst Mrs X and her family went on holiday. The Council had suggested resolutions outside of direct payments, which were declined by Mr Z and Mrs Y, on which basis the investigation was closed following initial enquiries.
What happened
Mrs X who cared for Mr Z informally was in the habit of using benefit (carer’s allowance) to pay her sister, Mr Z’s Aunt, to provide care whilst herself and the rest of her family went on holiday whenever Mr Z did not wish to go with them.
Mrs X claimed she was later told by her solicitor this was not allowed, so she contacted the Council to request direct payments instead, to finance the care for such a situation.
The Council refused, offering a commissioned package instead. Mrs X thus complained to the Ombudsman.
The Council found out that Mr Z’s Aunt no longer wished to support him. The Council said it had offered several alternative care options, which included a paid personal assistant and a care package, but these were declined by both Mrs X and Mr Z. The Council thus said they were unable to resolve the situation.
What was found
The Ombudsman found that the Council took appropriate steps to implement a package of care for Mr Z. On such grounds, the complaint was not investigated further because there was insufficient evidence to justify investigation.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups and members of the public
It is well within the Ombudsman’s discretion to refuse to investigate the matter further but when they do that, it would help the public, if they provided some more information.
We do not know anything about Mr Z’s extent of need, whether he had a care package in his own name, or what the charges were, if any, for his care. All these things would affect Kent’s options.
Direct payments are monetary payments made to individuals who request to receive one to meet some or all of their eligible care and support needs. These can be made by the Council under the Care Act 2014, through a care and support plan. A support plan must include a personal budget, which is the money the council has worked out it will cost to arrange the necessary care and support for that person.
When a person asks for a direct payment, (whether for themselves or for replacement care for a person who cannot consent to receiving the care via a carer’s own support budget, and pay for it as well), there are 4 conditions which must be met, in the council’s opinion.
One of them is that this particular deployment route is an appropriate means to meet the need.
This Council may well have explained themselves in refusing a direct payment but if someone asks for one, there is no right to just say ‘No, you should have a commissioned service for your son.’ The sections in Chapter 12 of the Care and Support Guidance make it clear that most suggestions should be regarded as appropriate! Public law principles require that a council explains itself so that we can all hold them to account.
It may be what motivated Kent County Council here was realising that giving everyone a direct payment when their carer wants to go on holiday and stop caring for a bit, would either expose the problem that the rate being paid to direct payments clients was not sufficient to cover the cost of the replacement care, or that it would loosen the control of the Council on its local ‘general’ offer of how much respite it would like to think it can limit people to, but these are not considerations that they can take into account under the law of community care.
Nobody needs to provide informal care if they don’t want to, and a carer taking a holiday is a very good reason to support a carer in organising replacement care for the underlying person, if that person can consent to it, or has a care package in their own name.
We want to stress that the solicitor in question may have needed to do a better job too. That is because the law is that one can still get Carer’s Allowance if one temporarily stops providing care for someone and that there are NO prohibitions on how one then spends that money.
For example, although we are not benefits experts at all, one can get Carer’s Allowance for up to:
- 12 weeks if either of you go into hospital
- four weeks if either of you go on holiday
- four weeks if the person you care for has a stay in a care home
The most relevant guidance as to how one organises cover comes from Carers UK’s factsheet, which states that during breaks you can “recruit a paid care worker or to use an agency” (which of course the money will be insufficient to cover the need because of the agency’s legitimate need to make a profit) and “choose to fund it yourself” when arranging alternative care.
The factsheet is dated 2022/2023 and can be found here: https://www.carersuk.org/media/e0qpyj2r/carers-uk-breaks-factsheet_2022-23.pdf
Carers UK’s factsheet section on Getting help through social services / the social work department omits to mention that you don’t have to care if you don’t want to.
It simply says that social services or social work departments can arrange (or fund through a direct payment) alternative care for the person you are looking after so that you can take a break from caring. It does not explain that the absence of informal care will invariably generate some unmet eligible need to be assessed for, on a review of the Cared For Person’s care plan. We expect that that advice to seek a direct payment is why this family went down that route.
It doesn’t say that the need for respite cover is in fact the individual’s need, to abide the absence of their normal carer’s input – not the carer’s ‘support’ need!
Please use the following link if you want to read the original Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s Kent County Council (24 014 766) report.
If you are affected by the issues in this report, please consider asking a free, one-off question, anonymously, at a level of principle, here. Our experts’ response will give you an opinion which may then help you and the broader community, when posted.
Did you enjoy this analysis? Want to stay informed with our weekly Alert Service?
Then do click here to find out how you can receive the latest insights from experts and commentators and stay updated on key judicial decisions, ombudsmen’s reports, and critical law and policy changes, all for just £50 per YEAR and sent straight to your inbox or WhatsApp!