Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s social worker provision. This is because there is insufficient evidence of a significant injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that Kent County Council (the Council) has changed how it provided him with social worker support because of allegations he considers were untrue.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant, his advocate and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. The complainant had an opportunity to comment on a draft decision statement and I considered these comments before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

Brief background

6. Mr X was receiving care and support from the community mental health team with a social worker acting as his care coordinator.
7. In 2020 the Council had started a programme to transfer care the coordinator role away from social workers and into the Mental Health NHS Trust (the Trust). During this time, Mr X’s psychotherapist told colleagues about an incident that had happened around two years earlier. This had involved Mr X’s social worker putting a toy gun Mr X had bought in the bin. Mr X and the social worker have always been clear this was not a real gun and neither had considered the event was significant in the following two years.
8. The psychotherapist’s disclosure to her employer in 2020 appears to have implied the incident was current and did not acknowledge the gun was not real. It also suggested the social worker may still have the gun at their home. The police attended the social worker’s home and they were removed as Mr X’s social worker. Mr X’s care coordination passed to the Trust and the Council allocated a new social worker to manage Mr X’s social care needs.
9. Following this incident, the Council said Mr X had declined a social care needs assessment and only asked that it provide him with a social worker to go to medical appointments with him as needed. The Council did not agree to this. Mr X says he did not understand he was being offered a social needs assessment and did not refuse this. However, Mr X later agreed to a social care needs assessment and the Council arranged to complete this.
10. Mr X has made a separate complaint about the actions of the Mental Health Trust.

Analysis

11. The Council changed Mr X’s social worker/care coordinator sooner than planned. It seems this was prompted by the psychotherapist’s disclosure about the gun.
12. Although it is unclear if the Council followed the usual process to change Mr X’s social worker, I have seen no evidence the change of social worker caused Mr X a significant injustice. The plan was already in place to transfer Mr X’s care coordination to the Trust and the Council allocated him a different social worker straight away. Mr X therefore had access to appropriate support and he says he has a good working relationship with his new social worker.
13. While Mr X says he did not initially understand he had declined a social care needs assessment, when he agreed to this, the Council arranged an assessment without delay.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of a significant injustice to Mr X from the change of social worker.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman