Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about delay in installing a ramp at their property. This is because it is unlikely any further investigation could add to the Council’s response or make a different finding to that already provided to Mrs A by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs A says a temporary ramp the Council supplied was too heavy and it took too long to install leaving her husband, Mr A housebound. Mrs A says it took the Council too long to put a permanent ramp in the property.

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 provided. I sent Mrs A a copy of my draft decision and considered her comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs A is unhappy with time it has taken the Council to install a ramp in their property.
5. The Council says an Occupational Therapist (OT) completed assessments at Mr and Mrs A’s property on two separate dates in July and decided Mr A needed a ramp to be able get into and out of his home.
6. The Council explained the OT left the organisation and a new OT was recruited and allocated Mr A’s case in August. The OT visited Mr A and ordered portable ramps so Mr A could access the community. The OT arranged for a representative from Right Choice Mobility to visit the property to assess the suitability of a long-term ramp but did not attend the planned appointment.
7. Mrs A attended the Council’s office on 29 August to discuss her concerns. The Council arranged for a temporary ramp to be delivered the same day for use while a long-term ramp could be ordered and installed.
8. The Council and a representative from Right Choice Mobility visited on 30 August and assessed suitability of a long-term ramp which was ordered on 3 September. The Council explained it should take about six weeks for the new ramp to be installed.
9. The Council apologised for the distress and difficulties Mr and Mrs A had encountered due to a replacement OT being recruited when the initial one left.
10. Mrs A says the temporary ramp was heavy to manoeuver.
11. The Council confirmed the temporary ramp was suitable for carers to be able to take Mr A out into the community and explained it had ordered a new permanent ramp which would take about six weeks to be installed. While Mr and Mrs A have suffered some injustice because of the delay in installing a temporary and permanent ramp, the Council has apologised and explained the reasons for this. Ombudsman could not add to this or make a different finding even if he investigated.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely any further investigation could add to the Council’s response or make a different finding to that already provided to Mrs A by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman