Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to fit a stairlift in Mr X’s property. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the way the Council considered the matter.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council refused to fit a stairlift for his wife in their property. He says the Council did not asses the property properly and refused their request for a second assessment. He says the Council’s decision meant he wife was not able to get up the stairs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, 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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In June 2022, the Council visited Mr X’s property to complete an initial occupational therapy assessment for his wife, Mrs X. The assessment noted Mrs X’s medical condition impacted on her mobility and that she struggled getting up the stairs to use the bathroom.
7. The Council came out to Mr and Mrs X’s property again in September 2022. A representative from the stairlift company and an occupational therapist (OT) attended to consider the feasibility of installing a stairlift. Records following the visit noted the stairlift representative would send technical drawings for the stairlift, including dimensions, to the OT. An assessment of whether there was clear space for household members to mobilise safely on the landing would then be completed.
8. The Council’s clinical lead OT considered the technical drawings at the end of September 2022. The OT identified several areas of concerns and discussed the matter with the other clinical lead OTs. The Council’s records showed the OTs acknowledged a stairlift could be installed at Mr and Mr X’s property. However, they all agreed there were a number of risks present which meant a recommendation for a stairlift could not be supported.
9. An investigation is not justified as there is insufficient evidence of fault with the way the Council considered the matter. This is because the Council has considered Mr X’s points and outlined its rationale for why it decided not to recommend the installation of a stairlift, despite it being possible.
10. I acknowledge Mr X considers the Council’s decision was wrong as a stairlift has since been privately installed. However, the Ombudsman can only review how the Council made its decision. As the evidence shows this decision was properly made, we cannot overturn the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the way the Council considered the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman