Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about inappropriate communication with family about adult social care provision to a relative. The Council has apologised and explained the actions taken to prevent recurrence. It is unlikely we would add to that or achieve anything further. There is not a significant unremedied injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms C says the Council contacted her and her sister about the care of their relative, Mr D. This was despite Ms C and her sister asking the Council not to do this. The Council then failed to follow its complaint process, which added further distress and frustration to Ms C.

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:

• any fault has not caused significant enough injustice to the person who complained to justify our involvement, or
• 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 may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

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. We do not investigate all complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
7. Mr D has since died, so there is no continuing risk of the Council inappropriately contacting Ms C or her sister about his care support. The Council has apologised for its error and confirmed the action it has taken to try and prevent future recurrence. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further.
8. Ms C is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. The Council delayed sending its response by seven months. The Council should have an adequate process in place to oversee complaints due a response. This delay will have added to Ms C’s frustration. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms C’s complaint because it is unlikely we would add to the Council’s investigation or achieve anything further. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken, once it eventually issued its complaint response. While I appreciate Ms C’s frustration, there is not a significant enough injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman