Summary: There was no fault in the Council's occupational therapy assessments of Miss Y following a multi-disciplinary meeting.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained that the Council failed to stick to its agreements following a multi-disciplinary meeting by:
1. Failing to incorporate previously agreed recommendations in its updated assessment in December 2023;
2. Reassessing Miss X's daughter, Miss Y, without her involvement or agreement
3. Not having an OT allocated to the case
4. Producing a report which wrongly said proposed adaptations would meet the family’s needs without visiting the property.
2. As a result, Miss X says she and her family have experienced significant and avoidable stress and anxiety and have lost trust in the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered the complaint and the information Miss X provided.
6. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
7. Miss X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

8. Miss X's eldest child, Miss Y, is Disabled. Miss X is a tenant of the borough council. In May 2022, the County Council (hereafter, the Council) carried out a new assessment of Miss Y's needs. An Occupational Therapist (OT1) report found the current property cannot be adapted to meet Miss Y's needs. The family need to move. OT1 added further details by email in December 2022, providing more information about the "annexe style" adaptations recommended in May 2022.
9. In October 2023, Miss X, Miss Y, and representatives from both the Council and the borough council attended a multi-disciplinary meeting. Following the meeting, the Council agreed to update the 2022 OT assessment to reflect the needs of the wider family. The borough council agreed to look for a property on the open market it could buy to meet the family's needs.

October and December 2023 assessments

10. A different OT (OT2) carried out an updated assessment in 2023. This added to, and did not change, the May 2022 assessment. In December, to avoid confusion and make sure all the needs were recorded in one place, OT2 further updated the assessment. This was to include the further details in the December 2022 email into the official assessment document.
11. The December 2023 document does not omit any previously agreed recommendations. It has not changed the May 2022 recommendations at all. It reflected the December 2022 email almost word for word and did not change its substantive meaning. There was no fault by the Council.

Reassessments

12. Miss X complained the Council had reassessed Miss Y without Miss Y's consent or involvement.
13. This is not what the evidence shows happened. OT2 visited Miss Y in October 2023 and updated the assessment, as agreed at the multi-disciplinary meeting. The December 2023 updated assessment was not a reassessment. It contained no new conclusions or recommendations. The Council was not at fault.

No OT allocated

14. Because Miss X and Miss Y were unhappy with the OT report in December 2023, they asked the Council to allocate a different OT. They felt OT2 had changed the recommendations away from the "annexe style" recommendations made by OT1 in 2022.
15. The Council did not allocate a new OT. Instead, it said it would do so when this was needed.
16. It would be preferable for Miss Y to have an allocated OT throughout the process of moving home. However, the Council must manage its resources to meet the demand on its services across the County. The evidence shows OT2 was willing to stay involved and was prepared to visit properties and provide ongoing advice and support to both Miss Y and the borough council. The Council removed OT2 from the case at Miss X and Miss Y's request. It was not fault for the Council not to allocate a further OT when there was no active role for an OT at the time.
17. Now that the borough council has identified a property, the Council has allocated a new OT.

Report without visit

18. Miss X complained that the Council told the borough council a property the borough council was considering buying could be adapted to meet Miss Y's needs. Miss X says the Council should have visited the property, preferably with Miss Y, to make sure the property could meet Miss Y's needs.
19. The Council says it needed to give prompt advice to the borough council. It says that at the time, the property was full of the owner's belongings and so it was not possible to usefully assess the space on site. It says the plans and drawings it used were more useful.
20. It would be preferable for the Council to be able to visit a property before giving a view on its suitability. However, the borough council asked for advice and the Council wanted to respond with urgency. It decided the available drawings, pictures, and plans were sufficient for it to reach a view. This was a decision open to the Council. There is no fault in how it made the decision and so I cannot question the outcome.
21. Miss X says the plans approved by the OT will not meet Miss Y's needs. The OT opinion is a matter of professional judgement. Where there is no fault in the process or conduct of the assessment, it is not for the Ombudsman to question such professional judgement.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman