Summary: We will not investigate Mr B and Mr C’s complaint about the Council carrying out a welfare visit to them without enough notice. This is because there is nothing further we could add to the previous investigation by the Council and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains that social workers carried out a welfare visit to the person he cares for, Mr C, without enough notice.
2. He says their behaviour was inappropriate, insensitive and threatening. And this caused him fear and anxiety.
3. He also complains the Council said it needs to complete a review of Mr C’s care needs. He says Mr C’s plan is working well and he doesn’t want any changes making.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainants and the Council’s complaint response.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr B’s complaint has been addressed through the Council’s complaints procedure. The Council has recognised there is fault and that it should have arranged the visit in advance, which it did not do. This caused Mr B fear and anxiety. The Council has apologised for that. This is sufficient to acknowledge the impact of the fault.
9. The Council has apologised that its staff made Mr B and Mr C uncomfortable and pressurised. It has also acknowledged that it has taken learning from the complaint, with the staff involved. This is sufficient action to acknowledge the complaint.
10. There is no fault in the Council saying it needs to review Mr C’s care needs. The last review was in 2019 and it should be completing reviews at least annually. Mr B and Mr C’s views that the current care plan is working well would feed into this review. This would be a separate complaint if a review was carried out and they were unhappy with the outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B and Mr C’s complaint because I am satisfied with the action the Council has taken in response to the complaint and I do not consider we would achieve anything further by investigation. This complaint does not evidence a systematic or wider public interest that would warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman