Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to install a second toilet in adaptations to a property which it offered to Mr X. there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal to install a second toilet in the property which he was offered as more suitable accommodation to his present home. He says that the Council’s Occupational Therapy service recommended the second toilet in the assessment of his needs and the work was blocked by a housing officer who rejected it on cost grounds. He wants the toilet to be installed as he was led to believe it would be.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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. Mr X says the Council offered him a property which required adaptation work to make it suitable for his medical needs. This included re-making the bathroom to incorporate a level-access shower which involved re-locating the toilet. He says the recommendation was for an additional toilet to the existing but he was told by a housing officer that the second toilet would not be installed.
6. He says the officer ignored the Occupational Therapy recommendation and that the officer acted unprofessionally by imposing his own views above the recommendation. He says the officer told him he could manage with a portable commode and this was an insult and affected his personal dignity.
7. The correspondence shows that the housing officer asked the Occupational Therapy service for confirmation following the advice to Mr X about no additional toilet being included. The Service confirmed that no extra toilet was included and that a portable commode was a satisfactory solution.
8. There is no record of the conversation between the housing officer and Mr X but it is clear that the officer had to tell him what the recommendation was, and that Mr X was likely to be upset however this was presented.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
10. In this case the recommended works did not include a second toilet and the housing service was required only to provide what the assessment indicated was suitable for Mr X’s needs.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to install a second toilet in adaptations to a property which it offered to Mr X. there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman