Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide meaningful support to Mrs X and her daughter. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s failure to provide meaningful support to her and her daughter, poor communication and a lack of appropriate action. Mrs X said this has had a significant impact on her and her daughter’s wellbeing.
2. Mrs X wants the Council to complete a new care assessment, confirmation her case has been transferred to the mental health team with an allocated worker, an apology and an explanation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council completed a Care Act assessment in January 2024. Mrs X says she did not receive the outcome until April 2024, when the Council allocated a different officer. She asked the Council to amend the assessment and it issued a draft in May 2024. Mrs X provided further comments and the Council sought to arrange a home visit to finalise the assessment. In January 2025, Mrs X asked the Council to transfer her case to its mental health team, as she considered that team could complete the assessment.
7. The Council failed to tell Mrs X the officer who completed the January 2024 assessment had left the Council and therefore the assessment process had not progressed. However, I do not consider this caused Mrs X a significant injustice which would warrant further investigation. The evidence shows the Council made several attempts between April and November 2024 to finalise the assessment with Mrs X. Throughout this time, Mrs X told the Council the assessment contained inaccurate information and asked it to reconsider. I have not seen evidence any delays during this period were due to fault by the Council. I cannot comment on the quality of the assessment at that time as it was not finalised. The Council has allocated a mental health worker who has been in contact with Mrs X and completed an assessment.
8. Mrs X also complained the Care Act assessment used outdated and ableist terminology. The Council explained the wording was generated by its system. It agreed to review the issue and provide feedback to the relevant team. This was a proportionate response, and further investigation by us would not achieve a different outcome.
9. Mrs X also said the Council failed to treat her situation as urgent or put a support plan in place despite her continued contact from late 2023 into 2024. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating this further. As set out above, the Council was engaging with Mrs X during this period and taking steps to complete the Care Act assessment.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because part of the complaint is late and there are no good reasons, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in the remaining part of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman