Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about perceived negligence by the Council for missing an appointment related to health safeguarding. This is because the complainant alleges negligence and in these circumstances, it would be reasonable for him to seek a remedy through the courts.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr J, is making a complaint about the Council for failing to adhere to an agreed appointment to visit his farther who was in poor health. The appointment was conduct an assessment and to install safeguarding equipment to support his safety.
2. Mr J says his father not long after the missed appointment fell and passed away and he feels the Council were negligent since the equipment would likely have meant his father would have received medical treatment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have reviewed Mr J’s complaint to the Council and Ombudsman. I have also had regard to the responses of the Council and applicable legislation.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. Safe and Sound puts a person in contact with a response team if anything should happen at home, such as a fall. The service is available during the day or night. The response team is available in an emergency to help assess a situation, take the appropriate action and advise what needs to be done.
7. Safe and Sound is part of Bradford Council, Adult and Community Services.

What happened

8. In December 2019, Mr J’s father collapsed and was taken to hospital for treatment. After his father’s discharge, the nurse and family collectively discussed the potential for the installation of equipment in his home to identify if he had a fall again which would alert medical help and safeguard his health.
9. In January 2020, the initial appointment was organised for later in the month. However, the appointment was cancelled by the Council the day before due to staffing issues and was rescheduled for February 2020. Had the appointment gone ahead, an assessment would have been undertaken and the appropriate equipment would have been installed.
10. Before the rescheduled appointment could take place, Mr J’s father collapsed, and he later passed away. Mr J feels had the initial appointment been undertaken as agreed, then this may have saved his father’s life.
11. Mr J sought to resolve his complaint directly with the Council but it did not uphold his complaint. Mr J subsequently brought his complaint to the Ombudsman and said that he believed the Council had been negligent and that its failure to attend the initial appointment was a significant factor in his father’s death.

Assessment

12. In my view, Mr J’s complaint is, in effect, that the Council has been negligent. Adjudication on questions of negligence usually involves making decisions on contested questions of fact and law which need the more rigorous and structured procedures of civil litigation for their proper determination. In addition, only a court can decide if a council has been negligent and what damages must be paid. We cannot decide on the balance of probabilities whether a council has been negligent and have no powers to enforce an award of damages. For this reason, we would usually expect someone in Mr M’s position to seek a remedy in the courts, directly or through his insurers.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because the complainant alleges negligence and in these circumstances, it would be reasonable for him to seek a remedy through the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman