Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council amended an Occupational Therapist’s assessment without his agreement. There is nothing to suggest the Council’s actions have caused a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council amended an Occupational Therapist’s (OT) assessment of his housing needs without his agreement. He said the Council did that following a conversation with the District Council which was responsible for managing the housing register. He said it had that conversation without his consent.
2. Mr X said the amended assessment does not reflect his housing needs. He wants the Council to financially compensate him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. In its complaint response, the Council said its initial OT assessment recommended Mr X needed a two-bedroom property in case his care needs increased in the future. It said following that assessment, the District Council contacted it to discuss whether Mr X currently needed overnight care. As Mr X did not, the District Council decided Mr X was not eligible for a two-bedroomed property in line with its policy. The Council said following that conversation, it updated its OT assessment to reflect his current housing needs and removed the requirement for a two-bedroomed property.
7. Although Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision to amend that assessment we will not investigate. Firstly, we cannot say the Council’s decision has caused Mr X a significant injustice. That is because any decision about the housing register, the housing allocations policy and whether Mr X is eligible for a two-bedroomed property is a decision for the District Council, not the Council. If Mr X is unhappy with the District Council’s decision he would need to complain to it.
8. Secondly, the Council is changed its assessment its recommendation reflected his current housing needs. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.
9. Mr X is also unhappy the Council spoke to the District Council without his consent. He has raised this complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). This is the best body to deal with concerns about data protection.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is nothing to suggest the Council’s actions have caused Mr X a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman