Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the actions of the Council regarding communication with him. This is because the Ombudsman could not provide Mr A with a different outcome to that already given by the Council even if he investigated.

The complaint

1. Mr A says the Council did not offer him and his wife an appointment as it said it did and says he did not decline an appointment. Mr A says he and his family are unable to access health care and have not received information he requested under a Subject Access Request (SAR).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants,
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as the NHS. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended).
5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information and documentation Mr A and the Council provided. I sent Mr A a copy of my draft decision and considered his comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr A complained to the Council about poor communication and that he disagreed with his wife’s, Mrs A’s, diagnosis of autism.
8. The Council responded to Mr A’s complaint in November. It said the Clinical Psychologist & Lead for the Adult Autism Diagnostic & Treatment service has agreed to meet with Mr A to discuss the diagnosis, however the Autism Development Officer was unclear as to whether Mrs A had given her consent to discuss her condition with other professionals.
9. The Council’s response says:

The Learning Disability & Autism Commissioner has previously communicated with you and informed you that Buckinghamshire County Council and do not play any part in the autism assessment and treatment process. The Autism Development Officer’s role was to engage with health and social care professionals to raise autism awareness and signpost individuals who have received a positive diagnosis to services that may offer them support.

In response to allegation about poor communication, the Autism Development Officer has confirmed that she met with you both on a number of occasions and also made arrangements for you to have a carer’s assessment, which resulted in you being offered support from Prevention Matters. The Autism Development Officer also signposted you to Relate (the relationship people), which would provide both you and your wife with support with the challenges that you are experiencing, however we are unsure whether you have engaged with either of these services offered. Having seen email correspondence and looking at how the Autism Development Officer has tried to support you both I am confident that she communicated with you in an appropriate and timely manner and I am therefore unable to uphold your complaint.

10. Mr A complained further. He said that he had not been offered an appointment as suggested in the Council’s response. The Council responded in February 2019, it said:

After further review of the comments made in the Council’s letter of 29 November 2018, the Clinical Psychologist provided confirmation that the offer of a meeting was a verbal discussion that took place between both her and the Autism Development Officer. The meeting referred to had not been offered at the time of responding to your complaint. We would like to apologise for the misunderstanding and for any inconvenience this may have caused you.

11. Mr A complained he had not been provided with the evidence he requested of a false report. He wanted to know who released the evidence and why they were not invited to the meeting. The Council responded in April and explained there is no evidence because it was a verbal discussion between the Clinical Psychologist and the Autism Development Officer who has now left the organisation.
12. The Ombudsman could not add to the Council’s response even if he investigated. This is because the Council says the discussion was verbal so is not recorded. The Ombudsman is satisfied an apology remedies the injustice caused to Mr A caused by the misunderstanding.
13. The Council has apologised for referring to a meeting but has explained it was a verbal discussion, so it has no evidence to provide Mr A with. If Mr A believes the Council holds information about him and is refusing to give it to him, he can ask the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider his concerns.
14. Mr A says he and his family have been denied healthcare. Mr A will need to complain to the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG)if he is concerned he is being denied access to healthcare. These are not matters the Ombudsman can consider.

Back to top

Final decision

15. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Ombudsman could not provide Mr A with a different outcome to that already given by the Council even if he investigated.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman