Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to change his social worker and how it managed the transition. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to change his social worker and how it managed the transition. The matter caused him distress. He wants the Council to either allocate him his previous social worker or provide him with a new social worker who meets his communication needs with a gradual transition.

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
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 has care and support needs. In late 2025, Mr X complained to the Council and said:
• it unexpectedly changed his social worker. He said the Council did not consult with him before doing so; and
• he was due to move to new accommodation and so wanted to keep the same social worker until he moved yet the Council did not consider his request.
7. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council:
• explained to Mr X it was necessary to change his social worker as the previous social worker could no longer commit to their role due to personal reasons;
• said it had held a meeting with Mr X before changing social workers and informed him during the meeting its decision to change social workers;
• said it held a handover meeting between the previous and new allocated social worker which Mr X also attended to support the transition;
• had considered waiting until Mr X had moved into new accommodation to change his social worker however, the date of his move was not confirmed; and
• said Mr X had been communicating with his new social worker which was evidence the rapport between him and the social worker was progressing.
8. It is unlikely we would find fault with the Council’s decision. The Council explained the change of social worker was necessary and it discussed the change with Mr X before it took place. Where there is no fault with how the Council made its decision, we cannot question the outcome.
9. Furthermore, the Council appropriately considered Mr X’s request to retain his existing social worker until he moved accommodation. However, as the date of his move had not been confirmed, it was reasonable for the Council not to delay the change indefinitely. The Council took steps to support continuity by arranging a handover between both social workers, which Mr X attended. Mr X has been communicating with his new social worker which shows that a working relationship is developing. It is unlikely we would find fault with how the Council managed the change.
10. In his complaint to us, Mr X said the Council failed to address his concern that the new social worker blocked him from contacting them on MS Teams. However, there is no evidence available to support this allegation. In the absence of evidence, we are unlikely to be able to establish fault or achieve a worthwhile outcome by investigating this matter further.
11. For the above reasons, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman