Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to procure a female support worker. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision and the service user can ask for a further review once his service has been in place for a year.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, who is an independent advocate, complained on behalf of Mr C, about the Council’s refusal to procure a female support worker for Mr C.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. Mr B and Mr C have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr B told us Mr C specifically requested a female support worker because he finds that he works better with females. Mr B said the Council refused to procure a female worker because, in its view, Mr C presents a risk to female workers. But Mr C contends the Council’s view is their view is unjustified and it disregards his particular learning needs. He said that Council is at fault because it placed more weight on a risk assessment by a support provider he last worked with in 2017 than on a risk assessment a social worker, Mr Z, completed in 2020.
8. Mr C wants the Council to carry out a further review of its response to his request for a female support worker, taking into account the Mr Z’s recent opinion. He said Mr Z has worked with him for several years.
9. The Council has made it clear in this case that its decision is not permanent. It has encouraged Mr C to accept a male support worker. The Council reached its decision on Mr C’s complaint in the knowledge of Mr Z’s October 2020 risk assessment. It is for the Council, as the decision-maker, and not us, to decide how much weight to attach to each piece of relevant information. In this case there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to justify investigating Mr C’s complaint.
10. While the Council has maintained its view there should be a male support worker for Mr C, it has said it will review the service once it had started and been in place for a year. It would be reasonable to expect Mr C to ask for another review at that time and he can support his request with an updated risk assessment from Mr Z.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision and Mr C can ask for a further review once his service has been in place for a year.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman