Leeds City Council (18 015 924)

Category : Adult care services > Other

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 24 Jul 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Council apologised for forgetting to tell Mr X about arrangements to attend an exhibition of visual aids but will make a small payment in recognition that this may have lost him the opportunity to find useful products. It has now provided a low-level light with magnifier for him. There is no evidence the Council dealt differently with Mr X because of his complaint although he complains staff would not enter his house because of the building works.

The complaint

  1. Mr X (as I shall call him) complains about the way the Council has treated his requests for assistance and says this has deterred him from accessing services again.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X and contacted his advocate. Both parties had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr X has been visually impaired since a motorbike accident in 2000. He has had some contact with the Council’s Disability Services since 2008, either by self-referral or through hospital referrals.
  2. In 2018 Mr X complained to the Council about the actions of the rehabilitation office (RO). He said she did not write things down and then forgot to carry out promised actions. The Disability Services Manager apologised to Mr X but said one of the services he requested (acting as his Appropriate Adult) was not a role the RO would normally take.
  3. Mr X remained unhappy and complained again. He said specifically the RO had promised to obtain a magnifier for him but did not provide it and would not come into his house; he said she told him about an exhibition of visual aids but forgot to send him the promised information and failed to respond to his telephone calls.
  4. The Head of Service spoke to Mr X then wrote to him about his complaint. She said while ROs were not able to provide magnifiers (which were provided by the NHS) they could help people use them, and she apologised for a lack of clarity about the help which would be provided. She said the RO accepted she had forgotten to give Mr X the information about the exhibition. She had also had problems with her answerphone and had not always returned Mr X’s calls. The Head of Service noted that the RO had generally not been able to come into Mr X’s home because of building works. The RO’s notes explain that “there is a drop of approx 2/3 ft to access the front door, this is not safe for any persons to cross, without suitable access RO visit will not be made”.
  5. Mr X continued to challenge the RO’s account of events. The Head of Service explained that although the provision of magnifiers was an NHS service, the Council could provide a ‘task lamp’ which had an integral magnifier. The Council arranged for a social worker and a RO to visit Mr X on 18 December to take the lamp.
  6. Mr X’s advocate complained subsequently to the Council about the visit and the Council’s continuing failure to return his phone calls. He said the visit had been very uncomfortable and the officers would not engage with him. He said staff lied to him about the availability of other staff, he thought this was because he had made a complaint.
  7. The Head of Complaints telephoned Mr X and then responded to the advocate. She said she had explained to him that the staff he complained about would not be dismissed, as he wanted, but assured him complaints were taken seriously and his concerns had been raised in staff meetings.
  8. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman. He says staff have lied to him about the availability of magnifiers and he has heard them laughing in the background when he has telephoned their office. Mr X says a local organisation which works with people who are visually impaired has now provided him with equipment which meets his needs and at the moment he does not require any additional services from the Council’s Disability Service.
  9. The Council says it does not provide magnifiers, which should be properly assessed for and provided by the low vision clinic at the hospital but offered him the integral magnifier and task lamp as a way of compensating him for the difficulties he had had. The Head of Service offers to meet Mr X to discuss possible improvements to the service.

Analysis

  1. It was important for officers to return Mr X’s calls promptly as they were his only method of communication. So it was fault to omit to do so, although the Council has since apologised and has reminded staff of the need to return calls promptly
  2. The failure to give Mr X the promised information about the exhibition was particularly unfortunate as he may have been prevented from finding out about items which were of use to him. The Council has apologised for that but should go further.
  3. It was not fault for officers not to enter the house if they considered the access hazardous, but they might have suggested a different venue to meet.
  4. I have not seen evidence that the Council treated Mr X differently because of the complaint, so it is unfortunate if he gained that impression.
  5. The Head of Service has offered to meet Mr X and he has now said he will take up that offer.

Back to top

Agreed actions

  1. Within one month of my final decision the Council will offer Mr X a payment of £100 in recognition of the frustration caused by the lost opportunity to attend the exhibition.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There was fault which caused some injustice to Mr X: satisfactory completion of the recommended action above will remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings