Summary: Mr X complained the Council refused to arrange an occupational therapy assessment of his home. The Council failed to properly respond to Mr X’s request for an occupational therapy assessment and poorly communicated with him. The Council agreed to apologise and pay Mr X a financial remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refused to carry out an occupational therapy assessment for his son, Y, in his home in 2022. As a result, he says Y is unable to safely use his home and therefore has been unable to visit for short breaks from his residential placement. He wants the Council to carry out the assessment and make his home safe for Y.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered:
• the information Mr X provided in his complaint; and
• the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting information it provided.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. Mr X’s son, Y, has complex care needs. Throughout 2022 Y was accommodated by the Council in a residential care home.
8. Mr X’s house has been adapted to meet Y’s needs, including a ground floor wet room. In 2021, further changes were made to Mr X’s home which the Council’s occupational therapy team provided advice about.
9. In November 2021, the Occupational Therapist (OT) assigned to the Y’s case ended discussed ending their involvement with Mr X. The Council’s notes from the time mention that all the necessary equipment had been provided and there was no continuing involvement for the occupational therapy team. The OT noted that there was an issue with drainage of the wet room, but Mr X’s landlord (which carried out the works) planned to resolve this in early 2022.
10. The Council’s records said the OT agreed with Mr X that their involvement had come to an end for the time being. However, the Council accepts it did not write to Mr X at the time to confirm this.
11. In early March 2022, Mr X contacted the OT and told them the wet room was still not draining correctly and was unsafe. Mr X asked the OT to assess the outstanding issues.
12. The OT replied to Mr X the following day saying:
• the occupational therapy case had been closed in late 2021;
• Mr X would need a new referral to the occupational therapy team; and
• if Mr X was concerned about the drainage of the wet room, he should contact his landlord about this.
13. The same day, Y’s social worker made a new referral to the occupational therapy team about drainage issues with the wet room. The Council accepts that, because of steps it took to secure Y’s records, the occupational therapy team did not receive or act on the referral correctly.
14. In April 2022, Mr X chased the referral with Y’s social worker who agreed to check on the referral. However, the Council accepts this did not happen.
15. Mr X complained to the Council about the occupational therapy referral and other issues between May and June 2022. The Council sent its final response to Mr X’s complaint in late June / early July 2022 in which it told Mr X that the issues were the wet room were for Mr X’s landlord to resolve. The Council signposted Mr X to the Ombudsman in its final response.
16. Between July and August 2022, the Council arranged for Y to move between residential care placements. This involved occupational therapy input, but this was about the care placements, rather than Mr X’s home.
17. In August 2022, the Mr X again chased the Council about the occupational therapy referral. The Council’s occupational therapy team considered the referral and decided the concerns Mr X had raised were the responsibility of his landlord. It contacted Mr X’s landlord on his behalf about this.
18. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in September 2022.
19. In its response to my enquiries, the Council accepted it had communicated poorly with Mr X about his request for an occupational therapy assessment and this had caused Mr X avoidable frustration. Although the Council believed the issues Mr X had raised about the wet room should be resolved by his landlord, it agreed to arrange an occupational therapy assessment for Mr X.

My findings

20. It is not our role to decide if the Council should have carried out an occupational therapy assessment; that was the Council’s responsibility. Our role is to assess whether the Council made its decision properly. We cannot question a decision the Council has made if it followed the right steps and considered relevant evidence.
21. The Council has accepted it failed to properly send Mr X a letter in late 2021 telling him it had closed the occupational therapy case. I am satisfied this failure caused Mr X some frustration when the Council later told him it had sent him a letter. However, I am satisfied the evidence shows the OT did discuss ending their involvement with Mr X at the time.
22. The evidence shows the Council was satisfied, in late 2021, that the changes made by Mr X’s landlord were suitable for Y’s needs. It did acknowledge there was an issue with the drainage of the wet room but described this as a ‘technical’ issue with the changes, rather than with any specification for what changes were needed. The OT explained this to Mr X in November 2021 and again in March 2022.
23. The Council has accepted it failed to property respond to the occupational therapy referral Y’s social worker made in March 2022 and that it failed to chase this up again in April 2022. I accept this caused avoidable frustration for Mr X at a time when the future placement for Y was uncertain.
24. However, I am not satisfied these failures caused other injustice, such as Y not being able to visit Mr X’s home. Evidence from the Council shows it decided in September 2022 that Y should start making short visits home. There is no evidence that issues with Mr X’s property prevented this happening sooner. When the Council properly considered the referral in August 2022, it also made the same decision that the concerns Mr X had were for his landlord to address. It is likely that, if it had properly considered the March 2022 referral, it would have made the same decision at that time.
25. Since Mr X complained to the Ombudsman, the Council has agreed to arrange an occupational therapy assessment.

Back to top

Agreed action

26. Within one month of my final decision the Council agreed to:
• apologise to Mr X for the delays and poor communication in considering Mr X’s request for an occupational therapy assessment between March and August 2022; and
• pay Mr X £200 to recognise the frustration and distress the delays and poor communication caused him.
27. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation. The Council failed to properly respond to Mr X’s request for an occupational therapy assessment and poorly communicated with him. The Council agreed to apologise and pay Mr X a financial remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman