Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about care provided to her daughter, Ms B. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused a significant enough injustice to Ms A or Ms B warranting an investigation. The Council has apologised for the mix up with her dental appointment and the Ombudsman is satisfied this remedies any injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms A complains she has been caused unnecessary stress and upset because the Council failed to liaise with her about her daughter’s, Ms B’s missed dental hospital appointment and assumed she would be available to take Ms B to a second appointment. Ms A says Ms B’s support worker made deliberate untrue statements and did not say why the social worker did not contact MIND to find out exact date and time of appointment.

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 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Ms A and the Council provided. I sent Ms A a copy of my draft decision and considered her comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms A says Ms B was not provided with care or support on the day of her missed dental hospital appointment in November 2018 and there was a lack of professionalism and contact from her social and support worker regarding her second appointment in January 2019.
5. The Council’s response dated 12 June apologises for missed appointment in November. It says Ms B’s previous worker was unable to attend so arranged a different worker to go with her, which initially Ms B agreed to. Ms B changed her mind and said did not want the new worker to attend so the Council continued to look for an alternative worker suitable to Ms B. However, the exact date and time of appointment was not clearly communicated so neither Ms B’s support worker nor her social worker were aware the appointment had been missed.
6. The Council says Ms B’s social worker and support worker met with her in December to introduce her to her new MIND worker. Ms B accepted the new worker who offered to support her to contact the dentist and reschedule the appointment. A further appointment was made for 23 January 2019. The Council says Ms B advised her support worker that she did not need support to attend the appointment as she had arranged for her mother to support her and she was going by taxi. Ms A says this is incorrect. Ms A says Ms B said her support worker could not attend the appointment with her as she was busy and suggested she ask Ms A.
7. Ms A says she did not know about the appointment and was not well enough to attend at short notice. Ms A says it was fortunate her other daughter was able to attend the appointment with Ms B.
8. The Council says the manager will discuss with staff the importance of keeping in touch with people receiving services as well as families if consent is given to do this. It said Ms B’s new social worker will work with Ms B to agree with her what information she wants to share with her family.
9. Ms A says she can evidence what Ms B says she was told by the support worker, however, the Ombudsman was not present during the conversation and could not make a finding on what was said between Ms B and her support worker about support to attend the January appointment.
10. The Council has apologised for the mix up with the first appointment and the Ombudsman is satisfied an apology remedies any injustice to Ms B regarding the missed appointment. While Ms A is unhappy with the arrangements for the second appointment, the Ombudsman could not make a finding on what was said or say Ms B suffered any significant injustice because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because he Council’s actions have not caused a significant enough injustice to Ms A or Ms B warranting an investigation. The Council has apologised for the mix up with her dental appointment and the Ombudsman is satisfied this remedies any injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman