Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to provide reconditioned beds to his children because there is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council made its decision. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s poor communication because we would not be able to add to the Council's investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to provide his children, Y and Z, with new beds following an assessment. He also said the Council poorly communicated with him. Mr X said as a result, his children have beds which are not suitable for their needs. He said the matter has caused him distress and frustration. He wants the Council to provide new beds. He also wants the Council to apologise to him for the injustice caused and make service improvements to prevent a recurrence of fault.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

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

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X’s children, Y and Z, have a disability. In response to Mr X’s request to the Council to provide Y and Z with specialist profiling beds, the Council’s Occupational Therapist completed an assessment. Mr X said the Occupational Therapist said they would provide new beds for Y and Z.
7. Mr X complained to the Council. As part of his complaint, he said the Council had:
• provided his children with used beds. He said the beds were unfit for their needs; and
• poorly communicated with him following the assessment.
8. The Council carried out an investigation into Mr X’s complaint. In its response to Mr X, the Council said:
• the Occupational Therapist’s assessment had been appropriate. It had been conducted in line with its policy for equipment and the Care Act 2014;
• the assessment report noted that the only option available was to provide reconditioned beds. The Council explained it only provides new beds when the clinical specifications cannot be met by its stock of reconditioned beds. It added Y and Z did not require new beds. The reconditioned beds the Council had provided were suitable to meet their needs;
• following its assessment, its communication had been poor with Mr X. It said it failed to contact Mr X again and provide him with a photograph of the beds it would actually provide. It said this fault led to the discussion around the beds incomplete. The Council apologised to Mr X and explained it would take action to prevent a recurrence of fault; and
• its communication with Mr X in relation to his complaint had been poor. It again apologised to Mr X and explained it would address the matter to prevent a recurrence of fault.

The Council offered Mr X a symbolic payment of £150 for the injustice caused.

9. We cannot say whether the beds the Council provided meet Y and Z’s needs. We can only look at the way the Council made its decision. The Council explained when it would provide new beds and that the reconditioned beds were suitable for Y and Z’s needs. There is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council made its decision and therefore, we cannot question the outcome.
10. In addition, the Council explained its assessment notes did not indicate it would provide Y and Z new beds.
11. The Council accepted its communication with Mr X had been poor following the assessment and after he had complained. It apologised to Mr X and offered him a symbolic payment for the injustice caused. It also explained what it would do going forward to prevent similar mistakes. This was appropriate and what we would expect the Council to do. We therefore could not add to its investigation.
12. For the above reasons, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council made its decision and we would not be able to add to its investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman