Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate this complaint about the care and support provided to a couple with significant health needs by the Council and Trust. This is because an investigation by the Ombudsmen would be unlikely to identify fault by the organisations concerned.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mrs G, is complaining about the care and support provided to her and her husband, Mr G, by Northumberland Council (the Council) and Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust).
2. Mrs G complains that the Council stopped her Direct Payments and refused to accept her applications for Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs). Mrs G also complains that the Trust failed to provide Mr G with a mobility scooter.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsmen investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. We use the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If there has been fault, the Ombudsmen consider whether it has caused injustice or hardship (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(1) and Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended).
4. The Ombudsmen provide a free service but must use public money carefully. They may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if they believe it is unlikely they would find fault. Similarly, the Ombudsmen may not investigate if they believe they are unlikely to add to any previous investigation undertaken by the bodies that are the subject of the complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. In reaching this final decision, I considered information provided by Mrs G and discussed the complaint with her. I also considered comments and documentation provided by the Council and Trust.

Back to top

What I found

Key facts

6. Mr and Mrs G live at home. They both have significant long-term health conditions and care needs.
7. In July 2017, Mrs G began to receive Direct Payments from the Council. She used the payments to purchase support from a domiciliary care agency.
8. The Trust completed a wheelchair assessment for Mr G in July 2018. The Trust explained that it does not provide mobility scooters for outdoor use. The Trust also advised the property was unsuitable for an electric wheelchair.
9. In December 2018, Mrs G told the Council she no longer wished to receive support from the Council.

Back to top

Analysis

Direct Payments

10. Mrs G complained that the Council stopped her Direct Payments and left her without support.
11. The Council said Mrs G received Direct Payments between July 2017 and December 2018. The Council said it stopped providing support at Mrs G’s request.
12. The case records contain notes of two telephone conversations between Mrs G and Council officers on 12 December 2018. The officer who took the initial call noted Mrs G “doesn’t want [any] involvement with us anymore and wants to have the care cancelled.”
13. A social worker called Mrs G back shortly afterwards. She noted Mrs G “said that she wanted nothing more to do with us, I told her that was fine but she could re-refer to us at any time for support…She said she does not want any care, or a care manager.”
14. Mrs G remained in contact with the Council regarding Mr G’s care needs. Mrs G subsequently requested a reassessment of her care needs and the Council completed this in April 2019.
15. In my view, the evidence supports the Council’s position and demonstrates that care and support was stopped at Mrs G’s request. On this basis, I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsmen is warranted. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council in relation to this matter.

Disabled Facilities Grants

16. Mrs G complained that she made several DFG applications to the Council but that it refused all of these.
17. The Council said Mrs G felt the laminate flooring within her home needed to be replaced as it represented a trip hazard for Mr G. The Council said Mrs G asked whether it would be prepared to fund this. The Council said it advised Mrs G that this would be a home improvement matter rather than an accessibility adaptation and that she would need to pay for this privately.
18. The Council’s records show Mrs G submitted a DFG application around ten years ago for the installation of a stairlift at her home. The Council approved this application and a stairlift was fitted.
19. By 2017, the stairlift was no longer working. Mrs G submitted a further DFG application. As part of this process, an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessed Mr and Mrs G’s property in October 2017. During that assessment, Mrs G told the OT she would also like the Council to fund resurfacing of the property’s rear garden as she felt this was a trip hazard for Mr G. In addition, Mrs G said she would like the Council to fund a replacement roof for the conservatory as it was cold during the winter months.
20. The OT told Mrs G that Mr G was able to safely mobilise on the existing paving in the rear garden. She also explained that “as [Mrs G] has sufficient living space in the house (living room, dining room and kitchen on ground floor that are adequately heated) that there is not an eligible need for a replacement roof to conservatory.” The OT advised Mrs G that an armed forces charity may be able to assist.
21. The Council subsequently agreed to fund the replacement stairlift through the DFG process as this would enable Mr G to safely access the upper floor of the property.
22. In May 2019, another OT assessed the property. Mrs G requested funding to replace the flooring in the living room and hallway. The OT assessed Mr G’s ability to mobilise on the flooring and concluded he could do so safely. The OT again advised Mrs G to approach a charity for assistance with funding this work.
23. In summary, the Council did agree to fund some adaptions to Mr and Mrs G’s home (specifically the installation, and later replacement, of a stairlift). However, the Council concluded that other adaptions requested by Mrs G were not needed to meet Mr G’s eligible care needs. The Council advised Mrs G it had no duty to fund these works and that she would need to either fund them privately or approach a charity for assistance.
24. In my view, the Council’s decisions appear to have been based on appropriately thorough assessments. For this reason, I consider it unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsmen would find fault by the Council with regards to this issue.

Mobility scooter

25. Mrs G complained that the Trust failed to provide Mr G with a mobility scooter.
26. The case records show the Council referred Mr G to the Trust for a wheelchair assessment in 2018.
27. A wheelchair therapist from the Trust visited Mr G in July 2018 to complete an assessment. She found Mrs G did not want a wheelchair, but rather wanted a mobility scooter for Mr G to help him mobilise outside the home. The therapist advised Mrs G that the wheelchair service does not provide mobility scooters.
28. Nevertheless, the therapist assessed Mr G’s mobility needs. She found a manual wheelchair would not be suitable as Mr G could not propel himself and Mrs G was unable to push him. The therapist also concluded that an electric wheelchair would not be suitable for use in Mr and Mrs G’s property. As a result, the wheelchair service informed the Council it was unable to assist.
29. In May 2019, the OT who assessed Mr and Mrs G’s property offered to trial an alternative walking aid for Mr G for use outside (such as a wheeled frame). However, Mr G declined this.
30. The evidence shows the Trust and Council explored other options to assist Mr G to mobilise outside (such as a manual wheelchair or a wheeled frame). However, these were either not suitable or were declined by Mr G.
31. The wheelchair service made clear to Mrs G that it would be unable to assist her to obtain a mobility scooter. The Council’s records show it advised Mrs G that she would need to approach a charity for help.
32. It is important to note that mobility scooters are not generally available on the NHS and that the Trust had no duty to provide one in this case. In my view, the evidence appears to show the Trust and Council made appropriate attempts to support Mr and Mrs G, albeit they were unable to provide the equipment Mrs G had requested.
33. On this basis, I consider it unlikely an investigation would find fault with the actions of either the Council or Trust.

Back to top

Final decision

34. The Ombudsmen will not investigate Mr and Mrs G’s complaint. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the support the Council and Trust provided to Mr and Mrs G.
35. I have now completed my consideration of this complaint and closed the case.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsmen

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman