Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay completing an adult social care needs assessment. The Council has a queue of cases waiting, which it has triaged and prioritised. It has explained this to the complainant and apologised for the impact of the delay which is due to demand on its service. This is a service failure, but it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would reach a different outcome to the actions the Council has already taken.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council is taking too long to assess his adult social care needs and can give no timeframe for when it will complete an assessment. This is causing Mr B significant distress. Mr B wants the Council to provide an assessment in the next two weeks.

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:

• 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))

3. 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. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. When the Council is aware of someone in its area who might need adult social care and support, it is responsible to complete an assessment of their care and support needs. Mr B has asked for an assessment, but due to demand the Council is using a waiting list for its services.
8. In these circumstances the Ombudsman expects councils to have a way of prioritising cases in the queue. The Council explains it does this; it triages every case it receives against a set of risk criteria and decides their priority. While Mr B may disagree with the priority the Council has given to his case, it is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault in the Council’s process so would be unable to criticise the Council’s decision.
9. I appreciate it is frustrating for Mr B to wait, especially as he does not know how long he must wait for. The Council has acknowledged this by apologising for its delay. The Council has suggested support that might be useful to Mr B and his family while he is waiting.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because although we recognise Mr B’s frustration and distress caused by the Council’s service failure, it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would reach a different outcome. If the Ombudsman were to investigate such a case it would ask the Council to apologise for the impact of its service failure, which it has already done. All the cases in the Council’s queue are important and we cannot recommend it gives extra priority to one case over another. We are satisfied with what the Council has done in response to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman