Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the outcome of his occupational therapy assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the outcome of his occupational therapy (OT) assessment in relation to his request for a shower to help with his difficulties in bathing.

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 asked the Council to provide him with a shower above his bath to help with his difficulties in bathing due to his anxiety and chronic fatigue.
8. The Council assessed Mr X’s needs in person via an at home OT assessment. The assessment found Mr X demonstrated having a full range of movement to manage bathing equipment and concluded his needs could be met via a bath lift. It explained its graded approach explores the most cost effective and least intrusive method for meeting a person’s needs.
9. Mr X declined the option of trialling a bath lift. He complains the Council did not consider or understand his disability in reaching its decision. He would like the Council to reconsider its approach as he considers it to be a waste of money and it is offering him equipment he does not need.
10. Whilst I acknowledge Mr X’s dissatisfaction with the Council’s decision, I can see no sign of fault in the way the Council assessed and decided this matter. The Council explained its approach is to explore the most cost effective and least intrusive option in meeting a person’s needs. The Council’s suitably qualified officers have decided a bath lift is a suitable option for Mr X to try and that it would meet his needs. There is no sign of fault in this approach. We are not an appeal body and it is not our role to question the merits of a council’s decision where, as here, there is no sign of fault in the way the decision was reached.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault by the Council in how it reached its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman