Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision not to provide her with a dropped kerb and hardstanding to make accessing her car easier. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council has been unfair in refusing her a dropped kerb and hardstanding at her property to make accessing her car easier. She also complains about how her Occupational Therapist dealt with her case.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Ms X and the Council. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms X is disabled and recently moved into a new property. She applied to the Council for various works to be carried out at the house to assist her. Due to the number of issues she raised, an Occupational Therapist (OT) visited her at home.
6. Following the visit, Ms X’s case was presented to the Major Adaptations Panel with a request for a replacement ramp, a second ground floor toilet, replacement stairlift, shower screens and a dropped kerb and hardstanding outside the property. Having reviewed matters, the Panel concluded that the OT should explore with Ms X the option of moving to a suitable property as the current one did not seem appropriate for her needs.
7. Having only recently moved, Ms X declined the rehousing option and the Panel reassessed her case and agreed the Council would provide the first four listed items but not the dropped kerb and hardstanding. It was explained to Ms X that these last two items had been declined because to qualify under the Council’s criteria, Ms X needed to be a wheelchair user and she is not.
8. The Council told Ms X it would reassess her needs if her circumstances changed and that it was also open to her to apply for a dropped kerb via the Highways Department although she would have to pay privately for this.
9. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Ms X complained to us.

Assessment

10. The Council considered Ms X’s requests for adaptations to her property and agreed to provide various items but not the dropped kerb and hardstanding because she is not a wheelchair user as its criteria requires. This is a disappointing outcome for Ms X but it is not evidence of fault by the Council. We cannot question a decision the Council has made if it followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information and I have seen no evidence to suggest this was not the case.
11. If Ms X has any new information the Council has not yet seen she can provide this so it can reassess her case. However, based on the information I have, an investigation is unlikely to find fault.
12. Ms X also complains about the way her OT communicated with her but this is a secondary matter which will not be investigated when we are not investigating the substantive issue.
13. In responding to my draft decision Ms X says her hopes had been unrealistically raised when she was advised to appeal to the Panel and that she wishes she had not wasted her time. She has also explained why she was disappointed with the nature of some conversations she had with her OT. While Ms X’s comments are noted, I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsman would be likely to lead to a different outcome for Ms X.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman