Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of a request for ceiling lift hoist to support Mr X’s son. It is unlikely we would find fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained because the Council declined to install a ceiling lift hoist (CLH) for his son (Y), until it first completes an occupational therapy (OT) assessment on Y. Mr X said he is unhappy because he believes the OT assessment is unnecessarily intrusive and is contrary to an earlier commitment the Council made.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X’s son (Y) is an adult who has a disability, who also has additional care and support needs. Mr X said during the period he was adding an extension to his home, he had several discussions with the Council about a CLH for Y. Once these works were completed, Mr X asked the Council to install the CLH.
7. The Council asked Mr X to allow them to carry out an OT assessment on Y to allow it to make a decision on Mr X’s request. Mr X declined to allow this, saying it was unnecessary and it was not in line with earlier conversations he had had with Council officers, including an OT.
8. The Council have a responsibility under the Care Act 2014, to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of a need for care and support. On the evidence I have seen, including the Council’s explanation of why it decided an OT assessment was needed, it is unlikely I would find fault in its request. It is now open to Mr X to decide whether he consents to this request.
9. Mr X said he now has the uncertainty of whether the building work he carried out was unnecessary. This is because he said the Council did not tell him a further OT assessment may be required. The Council provided me with copies of its discussions with Mr X here, and on balance, it is likely we would not find fault in the advice the Council provided Mr X.
10. Mr X said the Council unnecessarily delayed dealing with his complaint, but I will not consider this further. It is not a good use of our time to look at complaint handling where we are not investigating the substantive matters.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman