Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in carrying out an occupational health assessment for essential moving and handling equipment. This meant he was unable to attend a day centre. We found the Council to be at fault. To remedy the injustice to Mr X and his representative, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment. It will also take action to improve its service.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to carry out a prompt occupational health assessment. This meant he was unable to attend a day service that was essential to maintaining his well-being and ability to access the community.
2. Mr X is represented by his daughter, Ms P, in making this complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Ms P and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms P and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Ordinary residence

7. There may be some cases where a council considers it proper for the person’s care and support needs to be met by providing accommodation in another council area. Section 39 to 41 of the Care Act and the regulations set out what should happen in these cases. They specify which council is responsible for the person’s care and support when they are placed in another council’s area. The principle is the person placed ‘out of area’ is considered to continue to be ordinarily resident in the first or ‘placing’ authority area and so does not get an ordinary residence in the ‘host’ or second authority. The council which arranges the accommodation, therefore, keeps responsibility for meeting the person’s needs.

What happened

8. Mr X originally lived in the Council’s area. When Mr X was no longer able to live independently, the Council made arrangements for him to be accommodated in a care home (the Care Home) in a different London borough (Council D).
9. The Council supported and funded Mr X’s attendance at a day centre (the Day Centre), two times per week. The Day Centre was also in Council D’s area.
10. In January 2025, the Day Centre told Council D that Mr X needed specialist equipment to use his wheelchair safely. Until this was provided, he was unable to attend. Council D asked the Council, as funding authority, to arrange for an occupational therapy (OT) assessment. The Council decided it was unable to carry out an assessment because Mr X lived in Council D’s area.
11. After Ms P had waited over two months for un update, she made a formal complaint to the Council in mid-April 2025.
12. In response, the Council accepted it should have carried out the OT assessment in January 2025. It committed to action this straight away. Ms P says she heard nothing further from the Council.
13. The assessment took place shortly afterwards and equipment was ordered and supplied to the Care Home. Ms P says she was not notified of the outcome, either by the Council or the Care Home.
14. Since bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman, Mr X has spent several months in hospital. He would have been unable to access the Day Centre since May 2025, regardless of the Council’s actions. This limits the potential injustice to him.
15. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council:
1. accepted it was at fault for not carrying out the OT assessment and providing equipment between January and April 2025; and
2. accepted this prevented Mr X’s attendance at the Day Centre and offered to pay Mr X £500 to recognise this injustice.

Analysis

16. In cases such as this, where individuals are accommodated and receive services in another local authority, both the law, and the Ombudsman. expect councils to have procedures in place to ensure there is continuity of provision. This did not happen in January 2025 when the OT request was rejected by the Council.
17. This was fault.
18. There was further fault when the Council failed to communicate with Ms P after the assessment was carried out in April 2025. I would expect her to have been told that equipment had been delivered, and Mr P could potentially resume his Day Centre attendance, as this may still have been possible for a short period of time before his admission to hospital. This caused further avoidable frustration to Ms P.
19. I welcome the Council’s acceptance of fault and proposed remedy payment. This payment is in line with the Ombudsman’s published Guidance on Remedies and is a proportionate and appropriate remedy. I have also made recommendations below to improve the Council’s service and remedy the outstanding injustice to Ms P.

Back to top

Agreed action

20. Within four weeks from the date of my final decision, the Council agreed to take the following action.
1. Pay Mr X £500.
2. Apologise in writing to Ms P for its poor communication about this matter.
3. By training or other means, ensure relevant staff are aware of the Council’s responsibility to provide assessments and continuity of care to service users for whom it retains responsibility.
21. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the resulting injustice and improve its service. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman