Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s actions regarding Mr and Mrs C. This is because it is unlikely any further investigation could make a different finding or add to the Council’s response. The Council has apologised for the fault and there is no unremedied injustice warranting an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr B is unhappy with the Council’s responses to his complaints about the actions it took regarding his friends Mr and Mrs C. Mr B says Mrs C has been very distressed by the Council’s actions and should be compensated.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information and documentation Mr B and the Council provided. I sent Mr B a copy of my draft decision for comment.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B is unhappy with the Council’s responses to his concerns about its actions when Mr C returned home from hospital in May. Mr B says the Council was aware that Mrs C is not well and could not care for Mr C.
5. The Council explained Mr C wanted to go home and had capacity to make this decision even though Mrs C was concerned she would have to provide care to him. The Council explained it had arranged a care package for Mr C which met his needs and did not require any involvement from Mrs C. The Council confirmed Mrs C was not expected to provide any care or support for Mr C.
6. Mr B complained that no follow up assessment was carried out. The Council explained this was because Mr C’s care package was arranged privately when his reablement package ceased. It acknowledged it should have reassessed Mr C and apologised it did not. The Ombudsman is satisfied an apology remedies any injustice caused by the fault.
7. Mr C was taken home by ambulance on 17 May, but Mr B says the crew were unable to get him upstairs, so he was taken back to hospital. Mr B says Mrs C was made to feel it was her fault. The Council’s response to Mr B says it was not implying Mrs C was at fault or that she was being unreasonable and obstructive and apologised if this the impression given. The Ombudsman could not add to this or make a different finding even if he investigated.
8. Mr B says the police contacted Mrs C on 18 May at the request of the hospital because it could not gain upstairs access to Mr C’s home the previous day. Mr B says this was very distressing for Mrs C who was told Mr C would return later that day. The Council confirmed it was not aware of any police involvement. It checked with the police who said there was no record of a visit and suggested it may have been a neighbourhood police officer who visited. Mr B says when he checked with the police he was advised there was a record of the police visit. Although Mrs C was distressed by the police visit, the Council confirmed it did not request it. This is not an administrative task of the Council warranting an Ombudsman investigation. Further investigation could not say why the Council was given differing information to that Mr B received from the police.
9. Mr C was readmitted to hospital. The Council said it will review his situation when he was ready for discharge and undertake a mental capacity assessment
10. Mr B emailed the Council in November concerned that it had not considered Mrs C’s feelings and had not responded to requests for meetings but had told Mr C’s Power of Attorney that he would be discharged from hospital to a nursing home. The Council says a message was left on Mr B’s telephone inviting him to get back if he had any concerns and advised it had been liaising with Mr C’s Power of Attorney. Mr B says he did not receive any messages from the Council or missed calls. The Ombudsman could not say what happened to the call and could not say there is any fault with the Council’s actions given it contacted and liaised with Mr C’s court appointed attorney.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely any further investigation could make a different finding or add to the Council’s response. The Council has apologised for the fault and there is no unremedied injustice warranting an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman