Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council delaying organising respite care for his mother, Mrs X, and not dealing properly with his contacts about the matter. There is insufficient personal injustice to him or Mrs X to warrant us investigating and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X lives with her son Mr X. Mrs X receives care visits organised by the Council, to help meet her assessed needs. Mr X complains the Council:
1. delayed in organising respite care for Mrs X when he was going away;
2. did not deal properly with his contacts about the matter.
2. Mr X says he was made to feel like a nuisance by Council staff. He has lost trust in the Council and how it manages care packages. Mr X says he does not feel supported by the Council, which makes him doubt the option to continue to keep Mrs X at home. He wants the Council to review processes and policies.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council has confirmed officers accidentally removed Mrs X’s care package from its records. This led to confusion for officers responding to Mr X’s contacts about respite because they could not see she had the necessary assessments in place for Mr X to be asking for that respite. The Council has identified and fixed the error in its records.
6. There has been fault by the Council here. We recognise this meant Mr X had to chase the respite request, which took slightly longer than it might to be confirmed. It also meant he had some avoidable and confusing contacts from the Council about Mrs X’s assessments which would have caused him some annoyance, inconvenience and frustration. But the respite provision was in place for Mr X in time for him going away. The delay in confirming the respite care and the additional contacts with the Council did not cause such a significant personal injustice to Mr or Mrs X to warrant us investigating.
7. We realise the matter has led to Mr X losing some trust in the Council’s services and has led him to doubt whether her care should continue at home. But we cannot allay those feelings for Mr X. It is for him to decide whether he considers Mrs X’s needs can continue to be met at home by the services the Council provides and commissions.
8. The Council has apologised to Mr X for its records errors which caused the confusion to officers and affected their service to him. That is the result we would have sought from the Council here so there is no different outcome an investigation would now achieve.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient personal injustice to him or Mrs X from the matters complained of to warrant investigation; and
• investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman