Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to fund a profiling bed following an occupational therapy assessment for aids and adaptations. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the Council’s decision not to fund a profiling bed following an occupational therapy assessment. He says his rare condition affects his susceptibility to gain weight and puts him at risk for obesity. Mr B says an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessed him and told him he was eligible for a profiling bed. He complains a different OT his case was allocated to then told him he was not eligible. Mr B says he had to sleep in a bed which kept breaking as it could not sustain his weight and his parents had to pay for repairs. Mr B wants the Council to refund him the costs of a heavy-duty bed he had to purchase privately.

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 injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough 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, 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

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. The Council said an OT visited Mr B to assess his needs for aids and adaptations in January 2025. The assessment determined Mr B needed a specialised chair and a perching stool which the OT provided. The assessment identified Mr B needed a new bed as his bed frame had broken. The OT assessed Mr B did not need a profiling bed.
6. The Council said a surveyor and architect found Mr B needed a specific bed which could evenly distribute weight evenly across the flooring in his property. The OT agreed to look at identifying a suitable bed and approach charitable organisations which might fund the bed, if Mr B wanted the OT’s support.
7. The OT contacted Mr B in June to apologise for how long it had taken to identify a bed. The Council said the OT provided Mr B with a link to two beds the surveyor had identified as suitable. The information also included details of charitable organisations Mr B could apply to find out if he was eligible for funding for the bed.
8. Later in June Mr B contacted the OT to confirm he had purchased a bed. The Council said Mr B did not believe the OT had been communicating with the surveyor and wanted it to reimburse him for the cost of the bed. The Council said Mr B had purchased a bed which is a standard piece of furniture and it did not fund standard furniture items. It said the OT could still support Mr B to apply for funding if he wished.
9. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Council’s OT assessment determined Mr B was not eligible for a profiling bed to meet his needs. The Council’s OT provided support to help Mr B find a new and possible funding.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate M B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman