Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue an Occupational Therapist recommended walker. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not provide his wife, Mrs X with an Occupational Therapist recommended walker. This caused Mrs X loss of mobility and placed an increased physical burden on Mr X as her carer. Mr X also incurred a financial loss when he purchased a walker independently. Mr X would like the Council to apologise, increase their offer of payment, and review their processes to ensure recommendations are properly responded to.

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 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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X had an assessment in May 2025 from a therapy assistant, and she was offered a four-wheeled walker. The Council later told Mr X that Mrs X did not meet the criteria, and therefore the Council would not provide a walker.
6. In its complaint response, the Council said that an oversight occurred because the therapy assistant was not familiar with the equipment prescription guidelines. This led to an initial offer of a walker before approval was confirmed. The Council said that additional training had taken place to ensure that assessors reviewed eligibility criteria to help prevent a similar matter recurring.
7. The Council apologised for the misunderstanding over the eligibility criteria, and offered Mr X a goodwill gesture payment of £100 to buy a walker for Mrs X.
8. The Council said it had reviewed its criteria for prescribing equipment and minor adaptations and decided the criteria carefully considered the Council’s duties under the Care Act.
9. In its complaint response, the Council also offered Mrs X an assessment under the Care Act to highlight her support needs. It said the assessment could also look at a carers assessment for Mr X with his consent. The Council asked Mr X to contact them if he would like to arrange an assessment.
10. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. The Council apologised to Mr X for the misunderstanding over the offer of a walker and offered to carry out an assessment of Mrs X’s support needs. It also offered Mr X £100 as a goodwill gesture to buy a walker.
11. Mr X also complained about how the Council responded to his complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we decide not to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman