Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failing to respond to a telephone message and failing to provide emergency adult social care support. The Council’s initial two-day delay did not cause a significant enough injustice to justify an investigation. It is unlikely the delay affected the outcome that a suitable available placement could not be found. We would not add to the Council’s investigation or achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council failed to respond to his urgent request for support for his relative, Mr C. The hoist Mr C uses had broken, meaning he could not have a shower until it was fixed. Mr B and his wife struggled to support Mr C until the hoist was fixed a week later.

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, or
• any fault has not caused a 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr C receives care support at home and receives informal support from Mr & Mrs B. Mr C requires hoisting for all personal care, and he showers daily.
6. Mr C’s hoist broke, Mr B left a voicemail message at the Council but received no reply. Mr B called again two days later to a different telephone line at the Council and spoke with someone. Mr C’s case was then treated as a priority.
7. Mr B believes the Council deliberately did not call him back. The Council says the voicemail was on a telephone line that is not manned, and it would consider putting a voicemail on to redirect customers to the phoneline Mr B did eventually use. This does not explain why Mr B’s voicemail message was not retrieved and responded to. We would expect the Council to have a process for checking the voicemail on the phoneline. It needs to ensure to do this regularly and respond where necessary. However, we cannot say this failure caused a significant injustice. Mr B spoke with someone two days later, and for half of this time Mr C was on holiday.
8. I understand the broken hoist had a significant impact on Mr C and Mr & Mrs B. However, this was an emergency and not caused by fault of the Council. The Council tried to find a placement for Mr C as Mr B requested, but there was nowhere suitable and available that could meet Mr C’s needs. The Council found one placement which Mr B rejected because of the distance. It is unlikely the outcome would have been different had the Council started the search two days earlier when Mr B first tried to contact it.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault causing a significant injustice. I understand Mr B’s upset and frustration at the Council’s failure to return his telephone message, but that is not significant enough to justify an Ombudsman investigation. This was rectified two days later when Mr B called again. It is unlikely the outcome regarding the care support would have been any different given the lack of available placements that could meet Mr C's needs.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman