Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council’s emergency support service failed to respond properly to an alert from her husband. This is because the Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X and her husband. The Council has already carried out appropriate service improvements and has further training planned.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained on behalf of her husband, Mr X. Mrs X complained the Council’s 24-hour support service failed to respond properly to an emergency call from Mr X during a ministroke or Transient Ischaemic Attack (TIA). She says this put him at risk of harm and caused them severe distress.

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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions a council has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information Mrs X provided. I have also considered the Council’s response. I have written to Mrs X with my draft decision and given her an opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X is visually impaired and has a history of strokes. The Council runs a 24-hour emergency alarm service for vulnerable people. In response to a call, the service takes initial information and arranges aid if necessary. The service also contacts next of kin.
5. In October 2019, Mr X had a TIA while alone in his home. He alerted the service and spoke to an operator. In response, the service called NHS 111. The service says NHS 111 agreed to call Mr X and tell them if contact was unsuccessful. The service says they would have then sent a responder to Mr X. When NHS 111 called Mr X, he could not answer. The service say NHS 111 did not tell them this.
6. During Mr X’s call, the service operator believed Mr X was with Mrs X. As such, the operator did not call Mrs X to notify her of the incident. Mrs X returned home 35 minutes after Mr X first called the service and phoned for an ambulance. Mrs X says she was told the wait for an ambulance was 40 minutes.
7. Mrs X says she would have returned home earlier if she was called after Mr X alerted the service. She says the TIA and delay caused by the service meant Mr X’s visual impairment and mental health have worsened. Mrs X believes the service placed Mr X’s life in jeopardy.

Back to top

Agreed action

8. The Council has agreed to pay £300 to Mrs X’s husband in recognition of the risk of harm caused by the service’s failure to respond appropriately to his alert. It has also agreed to pay Mrs X and Mr X £100 each to acknowledge their distress.
9. The Council carried out service improvements following Mrs X’s complaint. These included adding an extra step in the service’s call handling procedure to ensure staff consider past medical history when responding to calls. It also added the NHS guidance on TIA’s into the service’s induction training. The service has contacted The Stroke Association and has arranged a training session due for spring 2020.
10. I consider the payments and service improvements appropriately remedy the injustice suffered by Mr X and Mrs X.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has taken appropriate action already and has agreed to make a payment.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman