Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the actions of the Council regarding her sister Mrs C. This is because the injustice caused to Mrs B and Mrs C from the Council’s actions is not significant enough to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. It is unlikely any further investigation could provide Mrs B with the outcome she wants.

The complaint

1. Mrs B says she and other family members have been put to a lot of unnecessary distress and upset because the Council did not consider a hospital report that her sister, Mrs C, should not return home because it is unsafe. In addition, Mrs B says the advocate assigned to Mrs C was unsuitable and said in its response to her complaint the social worker had spoken to her which is untrue. Mrs B says the Ombudsman should complete a full and detailed investigation and the Council should re-train its social workers and not allow untrained social workers to practice.

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)

3. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, as amended

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I discussed the concerns with Mrs B and considered the information and documentation she and the Council provided. I sent Mrs B a copy of my draft decision and considered her comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs B says following discharge from hospital, Mrs C was placed in a temporary residential care home until a permanent one could be found. Mrs B is unhappy the Council initially said Mrs C could go home without considering the hospital report which said she could not manage and that she would be unsafe at home. Mrs B says she only found out the day before the Council attempted to send Mrs C home and it was only because of family intervention it decided not to. Mrs B says this caused the family considerable distress and upset. Mrs B says the Council’s response says the social worker spoke to her which is untrue.
6. The Council says Mrs C was due to be discharged from the home on 27 August but her discharge was cancelled the same day. This was because of concerns raised by Mrs B and other family members. It said the initial decision to discharge Mrs C back to her home included her viewpoint. It acknowledged this decision was not shared with the family and apologised for the distress caused.
7. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the way the Council took its initial decision that Mrs C could return home. Whilst the decision taken was distressing for the family, they told the Council of their concerns and the decision was then taken not to go ahead with the move. The Council also agreed to a change of worker as Mrs B was upset with the way decisions were taken and information was gathered.
8. Mrs C was not caused any significant injustice as she did not move and the Ombudsman is satisfied an apology and change of worker remedies the injustice caused to Mrs B. Mrs B can ask the Council to put a copy of her views on the file identifying the discrepancies in the Council’s response including the point that she did not speak to the worker as it says.
9. Mrs B says the advocate assigned to Mrs C asked the Care Manager who was supportive of Mrs C to leave the room. Mrs B says the assigned advocate was not suitable because she was deaf so could not hear what was said in a telephone conversation with Mrs C. The Council confirmed the advocate is deaf and explained she works with an interpreter. It explained because of the current COVID situation it has had to consider different ways of supporting people, such as telephone and video calls. It also confirmed the Care Manager was not forced out of the room as Mrs B says but shown to an area so Mrs C could have a private discussion with her advocate. The Council said it will contact the Care Manger directly to apologise that she felt left out.
10. The Council has confirmed Mrs C’s advocate was suitable and explained she needed to have a private discussion with Mrs C. An advocate should ensure their client has an opportunity to discuss matters in private, without other influences and this is not fault.
11. Mrs B says the Council’s social workers are untrained and she wants them to have additional training and wants to know the outcome of the training.
12. Personal matters are private between the Council as the employer and the individual members of staff. The Ombudsman would not expect the Council to disclose personnel matters to a third party.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the injustice caused to Mrs B and Mrs C from the Council’s actions is not significant enough to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. It is unlikely any further investigation could provide Mrs B with the outcome she wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman