Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about communication failures by the Council during a stressful adult social care case. The Council has apologised to the complainant and addressed the concerns with relevant staff to improve future service. We are satisfied with the actions already taken; it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add to this or achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms B says Council officers were rude and would not listen to her. Ms B says the Council put pressure on her for her relative, Ms C, to come back to her house from hospital even though Ms B was saying she could not cope and could no longer have Ms C living with her. Ms B says this was upsetting and has caused problems with other family members. It is affecting Ms B’s mental health and causing migraines; she wants the Council to change the social worker.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms C was living with Ms B in Ms B’s home and Ms B was meeting Ms C’s care and support needs. Ms C went into hospital. When the Council telephoned Ms B to say Ms C was ready to return home, Ms B said Ms C could not come back to live with her. Ms B says Council officers did not listen to her and were pushing for Ms C to return.
7. Ms C was essentially now homeless and blocking a hospital bed she no longer needed. The Council assessed Ms C did not need residential care and Ms C did not wish to live in residential care. The Council’s duty was to meet Ms C’s adult social care needs, and Ms C’s wish was to return to live with Ms B, so that was what the Council was trying to achieve. Ms C eventually went to live with another relative.
8. The Council has apologised to Ms B if its officers were rude or pushy and will speak with relevant individuals in their supervision meetings. This is suitable action in response to Ms B's concerns and it is unlikely we would achieve anything further. Ms B wants a different social worker but that is not an outcome the Ombudsman can achieve. We cannot tell the Council it must do this, there may be valid operational reasons not to change the social worker in this case.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because it is unlikely we would add to the Council’s investigation or achieve anything further. While I understand how distressing the situation was for Ms B, the Council has recognised this by apologising to Ms B for poor communication and discussing the concerns with relevant staff to improve future service.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman