Summary: Mr X complained the Council stopped its food parcel delivery service, introduced as a response to Covid-19, despite him having an ongoing need to continuing shielding. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council reduced its Covid-19 food parcel delivery service in June 2020 and stopped it completely at the end of July. Mr X says support with food shopping is vital to him and his wife. They cannot go shopping due to Mr X’s serious health condition, and the Council has failed to offer Mr X a long-term solution given that his consultant advised him to continue shielding.
2. Mr X complains the Council also did not properly respond to his complaint. He says the people responsible for the fault were tasked with investigating themselves, as the seconded food parcel team returned to their usual jobs in the Council’s complaints department. Mr X says the Council officers had an attitude when responding to his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. This complaint involves events that occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to Covid 19”.
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mr X provided when he complained to us.
6. I considered copies of complaints correspondence, provided by the Council.
7. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Those deemed at high risk (clinically extremely vulnerable) from Covid-19 were advised by the government in March 2020 to take extra steps to protect themselves. This was called shielding. Mr X has a serious health condition and received a letter from the government advising him to shield. His wife was not advised to shield other than because she was in Mr X’s household. The Government arranged to provide weekly food parcel deliveries to those who were shielding, and some councils supplemented this with their own local provision. The Council set up a Covid-19 food delivery team at the end of March 2020 to provide extra support to people shielding in its area. Mr X received weekly food parcels from the Council and the government.
9. In June 2020, the Council began work to help people receiving food parcels transition back towards shopping for themselves. It discussed voluntary schemes with Mr X, as well as supermarket deliveries. Mr X did not want to pursue these options due to individual issues he found with each option.
10. At the end of June 2020, the Government announced that from 1 August, people would no longer be advised to shield as the risk of getting Covid-19 was now lower. However, Mr X’s consultant advised him and his wife to continue shielding. Mr X told the Council his needs were long-term and he would continue to need support with his shopping to enable him to shield. The Council explained to Mr X that its food delivery service had been a short-term measure, and as shielding would be paused, its service would finish at the end of July 2020. It explained, however, that those who did not feel confident about organising their own shopping could continue to receive food boxes until then, which Mr X did.
11. There was no duty for councils to provide food parcel deliveries. The Council provided sufficient notice the service would come to an end and it sought to help Mr X arrange alternative support from voluntary services. It was transparent and explained its reasons for ending the service. Mr X’s consultant gave him different advice to that from the government. However, the Council does not have an ongoing duty to provide food parcels to enable people to shield. Mr X did not wish to accept the voluntary alternatives available to him. It is unlikely that an investigation would find fault.
12. It is open to Mr X to ask the Council’s adult social care department to carry out a care needs assessment, as Mr X’s ill health may mean he has eligible care needs that could be met through support with shopping. Mr X told the Council he needed ongoing support because he needed to continue shielding, not because his ill health makes it difficult for him and his wife to shop.
13. Mr X says the Council did not deal with all points he raised in his complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. Therefore, we should not investigate the Council’s complaint-handling alone.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find the Council at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman