Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about London Borough of Harrow’s role in securing a specialist wheelchair for his sister, Miss Y. This is because an investigation by the Ombudsman would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains that London Borough of Harrow (the Council) failed to support him when he approached it for assistance in securing a specialist wheelchair for his sister, Miss Y. Mr X said he asked the Council for assistance several times but that they failed in their duty of care to Miss Y.
2. Mr X says Miss Y has been left without a specialist wheelchair and that this has had a long-term effect on her mobility and caused a significant deterioration in her health. In addition, Mr X says he has been caused great frustration by the Council’s failure to support him.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him. I also considered information provided by the Council. I took account of relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered his comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background events

6. Miss Y has complex care needs and is resident in a care home. This placement was arranged and funded by the Council. She is also under the care of the local learning disability team.
7. Miss Y was unable to move around the care home on her own. As a result, in 2023, the local Integrated Care Board (ICB) commissioned a service provider to produce a specialist wheelchair for Miss Y to improve her mobility.
8. The service provider measured Miss Y at the care home. The wheelchair was eventually delivered in June 2025. However, the wheelchair was not suitable for Miss Y. Mr X entered into correspondence with the service provider with a view to arranging a further assessment for Miss Y.
9. In July, the care home made a safeguarding referral to the Council for Miss Y. This led the Council to raise the matter with the ICB, which had commissioning and oversight responsibility for provision of the wheelchair.
10. In September, Mr X approached the Council as he remained concerned about delays by the service provider. The Council twice referred the matter to the learning disability team to follow up.
11. In December, the service provider informed Mr X that Miss Y would not be suitable for a specialist wheelchair.
12. Mr X subsequently approached the Council again and it made a referral for Miss Y to the local NHS Occupational Therapy (OT) service.
13. Later that month, Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.

My analysis

14. It is entirely understandable that Mr X is frustrated this matter has yet to be resolved.
15. Nevertheless, it is important to be clear that responsibility for commissioning and funding Miss Y’s wheelchair rests with the local ICB. The ICB in turn commissioned the service provider to provide the wheelchair. This is an NHS service over which the Council has no authority.
16. The evidence I have seen suggests that, when Mr X approached the Council for assistance, it made appropriate referrals to support him. This included referrals to the learning disability service (which has overall responsibility for Miss Y’s care) and the local NHS OT service (which would be the appropriate service to explore alternative provision for Miss Y).
17. We will not, therefore, investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council. This is because I consider it unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsmen would find fault with the Council’s actions given its limited role in these events.

Back to top

Decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council as it is unlikely we would find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman