Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s communication and support it provided to her while she was in hospital. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains about the Council’s communication with her when in hospital.
   Miss B says the Council’s officer does not attend monthly hospital ward meetings and does not return her telephone calls. She says the Council does not keep her updated about progress with the placement she needs on discharge. Miss B says the Council agreed to provide weekly updates regarding her case but it has not. She says the matter is causing her to feel anxious and distressed as her discharge from hospital approaches. Miss B says the Council should acknowledge it is at fault and apologise. She says it should ensure she feels supported by its officers.

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 including the Council’s response to her complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss B complained to the Council in November 2025 about what she says was the lack of support from the Council’s officer. She said the officer did not attend monthly ward meetings in the hospital and did not return her calls. She said the matter caused her anxiety.
6. The Council responded to Miss B’s complaint and established from its investigation an officer had been allocated to Miss B’s case a few months prior to her complaint. It said the officer attended ward rounds dependent on whether they were at work. It said the officer liaised with a community psychiatric nurse (CPN) to assess Miss B’s needs and would update the CPN if they could not attend a meeting.
7. The Council records showed its officer had responded to queries from Miss B and shared progress about options for placements when she was discharged from hospital. It also said Miss B had visited prospective placements to inform decision making. The Council accepted its officer going on leave from work may have contributed to some delay.
8. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. On balance, it is likely Miss B has been involved in discussions about her placement on discharge and the Council confirmed she has visited potential schemes following communication from its officer. The anxiety Miss B experiences does not appear to be linked to fault by the Council. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman