Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker and their alleged threat to reduce X’s care package. We could not achieve a meaningful outcome for X by investigating.

The complaint

1. X complained:
• the Council threatened to reduce their care package significantly, against their wishes and the advice from their psychiatrist;
• the social worker was difficult to contact and only met X a few times; and
• the social worker did not answer questions, deflected, asked leading questions, did not give X adequate processing time and did not listen to X.
2. X said the matter caused them significant distress, and a knock on impact on their ability to remain in employment.
3. X wanted the Council to deliver staff training and for the social worker to face consequences. They also wanted the Council to make service improvements. They wanted it to pay them three months’ salary as compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. X complained about events of late 2023. They said the Council’s threat to reduce their care package significantly, along with the social worker’s approach, had caused them significant distress and resulted in them having to leave employment.
8. If we investigated this complaint, we would be unlikely to achieve the outcomes X seeks, or another more meaningful outcome. This is because:
• we could not come to sound conclusions about the social worker’s approach, as this relates largely to face to face events to which we were not party, and which took place nearly two years ago;
• the complaint is about a threat to reduce X’s care package, rather than an actual reduction of hours. While X experienced this as distressing, the injustice would be limited and would not include, for example, loss of service that might warrant corrective action. The Council apologised to X for their distress;
• we cannot ask organisations to take disciplinary actions against individual members of staff;
• our role is not to assess economic losses, for example loss of earnings, and we normally signpost people to the courts if they seek this outcome. It is open to X to consider pursuing the matter via an employment tribunal; and
• the Council reviewed its staff training in response to X’s complaint and decided it already offered sufficient training.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate X’s complaint because we could not achieve a meaningful outcome by doing so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman