Summary: Mr B complained about how the occupational therapy service communicated with him. He said poor communication caused him inconvenience and distress resulting in carer breakdown, and it delayed his brother’s assessment. The Council accepted its communication was not best practice, apologised and issued staff guidance. The remedy offered by the Council was sufficient to remedy the injustice to Mr B and his family.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about how the First Response occupational therapy service communicated with him. He said their communication was not fair and reasonable and not in line with good practice.
2. Mr B said this caused him inconvenience and distress resulting in carer breakdown, and it delayed his brother’s assessment by four months.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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:
• Mr B’s complaint and the information he provided;
• documents supplied by the Council;
• the Council’s policies and procedures; and
• our remedies guidance.
6. Mr B and the Council’s comments on a draft decision were considered before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. Mr B’s brother, Mr C, has cerebral palsy and a learning disability. Mr B and Mr C live with their parents, siblings, and other family members. Mr C is cared for full-time by his parents with the support of other family members.
8. The Council assigned an occupational therapist from the First Response service to Mr C to complete a manual handling assessment. The therapist called the family’s home number and spoke to Mr C’s father who asked her to speak to Mr B.
9. She spoke to Mr B on the phone about the requirements of the assessment and the family’s availability. The occupational therapist left two voicemails for Mr B. Mr B responded by text message and asked the therapist to send him some possible dates and times for the assessment, which she did. He accepted an appointment for the following week.
10. On the day of the appointment, Mr B text message the occupational therapist to see if she could move the appointment to later in the day. She could not and suggested some alternative dates for that week, including one that day at an earlier time. Mr B accepted the appointment for that day. The therapist advised Mr B by text message that she would be bringing a colleague to help with the assessment.
11. The occupational therapist and her colleague attended Mr C’s home and completed a manual handling assessment in November 2019. They decided Mr C’s needs would be met by the major adaptations the family had applied to the Council for a disabled facilities grant. Mr B asked the therapist for her email address so he could send her a summary of the visit. The therapist explained she did not used this method of communication and offered the email address for the First Response service. Mr B declined, ended the visit, and said he would complain to the Council because she had not given him her email address.
12. After the visit, Mr B text message the occupational therapist to confirm he would make a complaint and asked for her and her colleague’s names. The therapist gave him this information.
13. The occupational therapist closed Mr C’s case to the First Response service. Mr C remained open to the occupational therapy disabled facilities grant team.

Complaint

14. In November 2019, Mr B complained to the Council the occupational therapist failed to:
• Provide her full name.
• Give him her email address.
• Introduce her colleague.
• Display their BCC identification badges.
• Communicate with him other than by text message.
15. The Council upheld the first four parts of Mr B’s complaint. It apologised and said it would issue guidance to staff across Adult Social Care to ensure they followed good practice.
16. The Council did not uphold Mr B’s complaint the occupational therapist would only communicate by text message. The occupational therapist spoke to Mr B on the phone to arrange Mr C’s assessment visit.

Analysis

17. The Council accepted it was at fault because the occupational therapist did not provide her full name, supply her email address, introduce her colleague, or show their identification badges during the visit to assess Mr C. The Council apologised and said it would issue staff guidance to ensure these points were addressed. Mr B said the Council’s fault caused distress, carer breakdown and delayed Mr C being assessed.
18. The result of the assessment was the First Response service closed Mr C’s case because his needs were going to be met by planned adaptations to the family home. As the service was not involved with Mr C going forward, there is no evidence the fault led to delay. A different team was undertaking Mr C’s assessments for the disabled facilities grant. In these circumstances, the Council’s apology was a suitable remedy, and in line with our guidance on remedies. The Council’s decision to issue staff guidance was a suitable service improvement.
19. I agree with the Council’s decision not to uphold the complaint the occupational therapist would not communicate with Mr B other than by text message. The occupational therapist communicated with Mr B by phone and text message. It was Mr B who started to communicate by text message.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr B's complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr B and his family. The Council has taken action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman