Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to manage the person’s needs in the Mental Health Team. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Without fault in the way it made a decision, we cannot question the decision itself.

The complaint

1. The complainant says they feel unheard and not listened to by the Council, and feel their needs would best be met by the Autism team not the Mental Health Team. They say they would engage more in the Autism team, as due to a breakdown in their relationship with the social worker in the Mental Health Team their needs are not being met. They say the Council has misdiagnosed them and their actual condition can be managed in the Autism team. They wish to work with the Autism Team as before, for the Council to properly consider their actual diagnosis and accept their autism and dyslexia needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council has explained it made the decision to provide the person’s support through the Mental Health Team in discussion with both the Autism and Mental Health Teams. The decision reflected the person’s presentation and engagement with services. It decided their needs would best be met in the Adult Social Care Mental Health Team. The Council explained it does not provide care and support based on a medical diagnosis but on a person’s assessed needs. It explained it decides which team has the most suitable skills to support a person, and in this case it is the Mental Health Team.
6. The complainant is concerned this is not in line with the National Autism Strategy. They say they do not have a good relationship with their Social Worker and have difficulties with communication and access to management.
7. The evidence shows the Council has explained the reasons for its decision and the Manager from the Learning Disabilities and Autism Team has communicated and responded to the complainant and their Advocate. I recognise the complainant believes a wrong diagnosis has resulted in moving responsibility to the wrong Council team. But the Council has explained its reasons for the move, which is not about a diagnosis but about their assessed needs. We could not say this is fault. Without evidence fault in the process we cannot comment on the Council’s decision itself.
8. The complainant says they do not get on with their social worker and will engage better in the Autism Team. The Council has considered this point and says their engagement with the Autism Team previously was affected by their responses to interactions with other people they thought unsatisfactory. We could not say this is fault.
9. Nor could we decide whether the person is not interacting effectively with the Mental Health Team simply because they want to work with the Autism Team. It is open to the complainant to explain to the Council exactly what actions of the Social Worker they are unhappy with so it can consider whether to assign them a different Social Worker.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely there is enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. Where there is no evidence of fault we cannot question the Council’s decision itself.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman