Summary: Mr B complains about the Council and matters concerning his attendance at a service provider’s day unit. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and there is no worthwhile outcome we can achieve for Mr B.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, complains that there has been fault by the Council in connection with the decision by its service provider to stop his attendance at the provider’s day unit. He says he did not have the opportunity to put forward his case before the provider made its decision and that this has had a significant impact on his wellbeing.

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
• 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. In considering the complaint I spoke to Mr B and reviewed the information he and the Council provided. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B attended a day unit because of injuries he had acquired. He had been referred to the service by staff at the hospital where he had been receiving treatment.
5. Having attended the unit for about a year, it wrote to him to advise that following information it had received, he would no longer be able to attend the unit. Mr B complained to the service provider about this as he had not been given any chance to give input into the investigation it had undertaken before making its decision. The provider responded by saying data protection legislation prevented it from giving information to him.
6. Mr B then complained to the Council about the matter. It told him that as the Council had not made the decision to terminate the service, it was the provider’s responsibility to address the issues and explain the decision. The Council said its Commissioning Services Team would send his complaint to the provider and ask that it respond to him under its own complaints procedure and that the Council would look again at the matter if a resolution could not be reached.
7. Mr B did not receive any further information from the provider apart a letter stating the source of the information it had received and confirmation that it could no longer offer him a place at the unit.
8. Mr B gave the Council a copy of the provider’s response and it told him it would approach the service directly for the reason he had been stopped from attending. The Council tried on a number of occasions to obtain this information and finally received a brief letter from the service which confirmed it considered the information it had provided to Mr B was adequate and that it considered the matter closed.
9. Having received this response, the Council wrote to Mr B to explain it had done what it could and why, because of the unique contractual situation regarding the service he had used, it would not be able to take the matter further with the service provider.

Assessment

10. Mr B says he is aware of the information provided to the service which led to it stopping his attendance at the unit. He says it was unfair that this happened without him being given an explanation for the decision, the grounds on which it was made and without the opportunity for him to “defend” himself.
11. While I understand Mr B is upset with the actions of the provider, the Council took the steps it could to get more information for him. However, it was not able to do so as the provider did not co-operate and refused to comment further. The Council explained to Mr B why, because of the unusual way the service had been commissioned, it could not put further pressure to bear in this situation. This is disappointing for Mr B but it is not evidence of fault by the Council.
12. Mr B does not want to return to the unit and says the outcome he wants for his complaint is for the service provider to be “held to account” but this is not an outcome either the Council or we can obtain and I can see no worthwhile outcome achievable from an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council and there is no worthwhile outcome we can achieve for Mr B.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman