Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr and Mrs X’s care needs. This is because the Council has already apologised for the upheld parts of complaint, which is an appropriate remedy. Further investigation of the other parts of complaint would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about a delay allocating him and his wife, Mrs X, new social workers and about errors during the Council’s assessment of his needs. He also complains of poor communication and says the Council lied in its complaint response to him. He wants the Council to agree to complete a fresh occupational therapy assessment.

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))

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. In its complaint response to Mr X, the Council upheld part of his complaint. It accepted:
• there had been a delay allocating him and Mrs X new social workers;
• there had been a delay providing a piece of assistive equipment for Mrs X; and
• Mr X had received a phone call about bathing adaptations, despite him asking the Council to put the request on hold.
7. It apologised to him for these errors. It confirmed his request for bathing adaptations was on hold. It set out actions it would take to reduce delays when making one off purchases for equipment and other actions to improve its service.
8. It did not uphold other aspects of his complaint. It said it was satisfied the occupational therapist had appropriately completed their assessment and made reasonable recommendations for adaptations to meet his long term bathing needs. Because of this, it would not agree to complete a further assessment.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. The complaint response appropriately responds to each part of his complaint. The Council has accepted some fault and apologised to Mr X for the upheld parts of complaint. This is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused.
10. Officers are entitled to reach a professional opinion on what support or adaptations are needed to meet a person’s long term needs. Further investigation of this would be unlikely to lead to a finding of fault. It is also unlikely we could reach a conclusion that Council officers had lied. Mr X had told us that since his complaint, the Council has provided Mrs X with the assistive equipment and they have both been allocated new social workers. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The Council has already provided an appropriate remedy for the upheld parts of complaint and further investigation of the other points would achieve nothing more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman