Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about actions taken by the Council to provide support when Mr B became ill and was admitted to hospital. We could not add to the previous investigation by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council did not arrange increased care or consider its safeguarding procedures for him and his brother when he was ill and was admitted into hospital. Mr B said the Council did not put adequate care in place and this caused avoidable worry and distress. He also complains about a social worker entering his property without his permission which causes outrage. Mr B wants the Council to provide a full explanation of what went wrong.

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 another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; 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. Mr B says he is the primary carer for his brother who has care and support needs and is eligible for support from the Council. Mr B says he was admitted into hospital in July 2025 as an urgent case. He said the Council should have considered the situation in line with its safeguarding procedures. Mr B complained to the Council in October.
6. The Council responded to Mr B’s complaint in November. It confirmed it had supported Mr B’s brother since around 2014. The Council said when Mr B was ill in July 2025 it offered options to increase the care and provide respite. It provided the number for its Emergency Duty Team and said it told the care provider (supporting Mr B’s brother) to monitor the situation and respond if Mr B went into hospital.
7. The Council acknowledged there was a delay arranging a support call for a shopping task and apologised for this. It said it had acted to put a contingency plan in place with all partners to ensure it does not happen again.
8. The Council confirmed it had arranged to visit Mr B in November, but he later cancelled the visit. It said two of its officers still completed the visit so they could speak to Mr B’s brother and assess the placement. The Council said Mr B’s brother said he was happy with the placement but asked that respite options be included in his care plan.
9. The Council also said it would complete a carer’s assessment in line with the Care Act 2014 with Mr B to identify his needs and any support required. It also said its officer remained available to discuss any concerns Mr B had.
10. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because we could not add to the investigation already completed by the Council. When the Council investigated
    Mr B’s complaint it confirmed the actions it had taken and acted to assess his and his brother needs and arrange support as necessary. We cannot achieve more.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because we could not add to the previous investigation completed by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman