Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the outcome of his father’s occupational therapy assessment in relation to his request for a stairlift. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the outcome of his father’s, Mr Y’s, occupational therapy (OT) assessment in relation to his request for a stairlift.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complains on behalf of his father, Mr Y, about the outcome of an OT assessment which decided a stairlift would not be suitable for him due to his dementia diagnosis.
8. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. He says a stairlift would be safe for Mr Y, even if his dementia worsened, because the lift would be switched off unless in use; he would be the only person in charge of the controls and Mr Y would be unable to switch it on himself.
9. The Council explained that whilst it acknowledged Mr X’s comments there continued to be risks related to future behaviours associated with dementia which present a falls risk. Also that Mr Y may not be able to follow instructions as his dementia progresses which would make transfers on and off the stairlift unsafe. The Council recommended exploring the option of a through-floor lift as a safe and suitable option for Mr Y taking account of his specific needs.
10. Mr X says a through floor-lift would cause practical difficulties and might not even be possible.
11. Whilst I acknowledge Mr X’s dissatisfaction with the Council’s decision and his view that a stairlift would be safe for his father, I can see no sign of fault by the Council here. The Council has assessed Mr Y in person, considered the information provided and reached a decision that a stairlift would not be suitable in this case. It has clearly explained its decision and the reasons for it and the case was reviewed by senior officers including the Principal OT. The decision is a matter of professional judgement for the Council’s suitably qualified officers to make on the Council’s behalf. We are not an appeal body and we cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision where, as here, there is no sign of fault in the process by which it was reached.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman