Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s actions during his transition from children’s to adults services or its decision to transfer his case to the annual review team. This is because we could not add to the Council’s responses or make a different finding even if we investigated.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained about the Council’s lack of support during his transition from children’s to adults services. Mr B complained:

• he was not told of a change in social workers,
• he did not get support or information during the transition;
• his social worker was not proactive enough in engaging with the housing association regarding a move;
• his social worker should agree a plan so he can attend Education and Support for People with Autism (ESPA);
• allocate him a named social worker.

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 discussed the complaints with Mr B’s father and considered the information and documentation he 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 complained about lack of support and information when he transitioned from children’s to adults services and was allocated different social workers without his knowledge.
5. The Council acknowledged Mr B’s transition was not as person centred as it should have been and said social workers involvement could have been more pro-active and supportive. The Council says:

I can confirm that there are recordings evidencing the amount of emails sent, which outline the discussions held. However, after speaking to your previous social worker, she acknowledged that your support could have been delivered in a more flexible way and that she should have considered alternative ways to remain involved with you during the lockdown period. I would like to apologise for this and for how it had made you feel at the time.

6. The Council has explained due to the pressures emergencies placed on it at the start of the pandemic it was unable to provide a person-centred approach to Mr B’s transition as he wanted. However, while this may have increased Mr B’s anxieties at the time, the Council has apologised and we could achieve no more than this. We could not provide a different explanation or outcome even if we investigated.
7. Mr B say he is hypersensitive to sound and smell and has difficulties with anti-social behaviour from neighbours and people smoking outside a nearby hospital. Mr B says the Council should do more to assist his move. The Council has explained it cannot influence his housing association, but has confirmed it has written a letter of support to his application to be rehoused. It has also explained it cannot do anything about people smoking outside of the hospital and advised Mr B to complain to the Patient and Advice Liaison Services (PALS). We could not say this is fault or provide Mr B with a different explanation or outcome even if we investigated.
8. Mr B says he is socially isolated and should be allocated a Social Worker and be able to carry on attending ESPA.
9. The Council has explained Mr B’s case has now been transferred to the annual review team. It says Mr B will be able to carry on going to ESPA three days a week until his next care and support review is carried out. It says it considered referring Mr B to the Council’s Make a Change programme for additional support, but Mr B declined this offer. It also says it offered Mr B access to shared support hours with other clients, and while Mr B is has considered this offer, he does not feel he can at this time because of the Covid-19 situation.
10. The Council has explained Mr B’s assessed needs are being met. He can continue to attend ESPA and it has offered options to support Mr B’s isolation. We could not say this is fault or provide Mr B with a different explanation or outcome even if we investigated.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we could not add to the Council’s responses or make a different finding even if we investigated.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman