Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint that Council officers lied to her about her son’s, Mr B’s accommodation. This is because any further investigation by the Ombudsman could not add to the Council’s response or make a finding of the kind Mrs A wants.

The complaint

1. Mrs A says she was told at a review meeting in 2018 that her son, Mr B, would not lose his home. Mrs A says she told staff Mr B needed night care and would prefer him to remain in a residential setting. Mrs A says she has been lied to by council staff who were rude and unprofessional.

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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs A is unhappy with the way the Council arranged Mr B’s accommodation and feels she has been lied to.
5. The Council’s response acknowledges it did not specifically say Mr B would be moving at the meeting in 2018, but says it tried to reassure Mrs A that he would not be left without care and support. It says although the OT assessment recommended Mr B would be suitable for supported living accommodation. It also said a shared lives placement would be appropriate as he did not require a residential home due to his level of independence and minimal risks. Mr B was assessed as needing 53.8 hours of care and support a week. The Council decided Mr B’s needs could best be met in a Shared Lives Placement. It said:

Clearly your son’s care needs had changed, but I view this very positively giving his ability to use his gardening and other skills to enhance his own choices. Also, the Shared Lives Model, I believe, is a far more individually focused and intimate way of receiving care and support, in this instance, accommodation. It is also clear that any move would be gradual, to give [Mr B] the time and opportunity to adapt to any reorientation.

6. The Ombudsman could not say this is fault.
7. Mrs A says she did not want her son to live in a shared lives placement and said he should remain in a residential home. Mrs A says she was told taxpayers were not prepared to pay the cost of a residential home for Mr B and he could stay in the home if Mrs A was willing to pay the weekly fee of £1750 herself.
8. The Council says Mr B’s budget for his assessed needs based on 53.8 hours a week was £1190.40. It says it explained to Mrs A she could pay the difference between the two amounts, as a top-up, if she wanted Mr B to remain in the home. Mrs A says this is not true.
9. The Ombudsman could not make a finding on what was said in a conversation when he was not present or make a finding of the kind Mrs A wants.
10. Mrs A says Council staff used unprofessional terminology, laughed at her and then lied about it. The Council investigated Mrs A’s complaints. It explained the terminology, ‘hold fire’ was not necessarily unprofessional but meant to convey she needed to wait until a decision about Mr B’s care package had been completed. The worker apologised for the mistake. In a different situation a staff member denied laughing at Mrs A and the Council apologised that she felt she was lied regarding this matter. The Ombudsman was not present at meetings when the alleged behaviour occurred so could not make a finding on what happened. He is satisfied an apology and confirmation the Council did not imply Mrs A was lying remedies any injustice caused. The Ombudsman could achieve no more even if he investigated.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because any further investigation could add to the Council’s response or make a finding of the kind Mrs A wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman