Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse to replace the complainants walk in shower with a standard bath. The Council remedied the injustice when it investigated the complaint. We cannot add to the previous investigation by the Council.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains the Council failed to consider her needs properly for disabled works to her bathroom. Miss B says the Council is not allowing her to have her level access shower replaced with a bath. She feels the Council has not properly considered her needs by completing a proper assessment. Miss B she cannot take care of her personal needs properly and this impacts on her mental wellbeing. She wants the Council to consider her personal needs seriously and provide her with a bath.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss B lives in a property that has a level access shower in the bathroom and no bath. She referred herself to the Council’s occupational therapy (OT) service in February 2025 so it could consider changing her level access shower to a bath.
6. The OT service told Miss B the Council would not remove a level access shower and replace with a bath because the shower met her long-term needs. A Council officer telephoned Miss B a few weeks later to arrange for her to attend an assessment centre.
7. When Miss B went to the assessment centre she discussed the difficulties she was having with an assessor. The assessor advised her it was unlikely the Council could install a bath as the level access shower would meet her
   longer-term needs. The Council said the assessor order a grab rail and agreed to seek advice from the housing department about Miss B’s bath request. Miss B contacted the OT following the visit to request a bath but did not receive a reply.
8. The Council investigated Miss B’s complaint and upheld because she was not sent a record of her visit to the assessment centre. An OT had not reviewed her bath situation or assessed her needs properly and explored any alternatives with her.
9. The Council apologised to Miss B and said it would arrange a priority home visit to review Miss B’s bathroom, assess her needs and provide her with a copy of the assessment. It said it would also make referral to the housing department so
   Miss B’s needs could be considered. The Council told Miss B she could complain to us.
10. Miss B contacted the Council again after the assessment had been completed as she was unhappy with the Council’s decision it could not provide her with a standard bath. She then asked us to consider a complaint.
11. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint as the injustice was remedied when the Council investigated her complaint. The Council found fault in the way it had considered Miss B’s request for a shower. In response it provided a suitable remedy which included assessing her needs and considering her needs under the relevant policy. It explained why it cannot replace her level access shower with a standard bath. Miss B disagrees with the Council’s decision but we could not add to the previous investigation already completed.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint because the injustice was remedied when the Council investigated her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman