Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s careline service. The Council has admitted it was at fault and has offered a suitable remedy. We could not add to its investigation and our involvement would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the quality of service provided by the Council’s careline service. Ms X used her emergency buzzer in September 2021 but the Council failed to call an ambulance. Ms X’s key safe box was also faulty which caused the ambulance service difficulties in accessing Ms X’s property. Ms X suffered distress and was put at risk of harm.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or there is another body better placed to consider the complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X uses the Council’s careline service, which aims to provide a means to quickly call for help in an emergency. In September 2021 Ms X raised the alarm, but say the member of staff she spoke to told her to call an ambulance herself. They did not call emergency services on Ms X’s behalf. However, a neighbour helped her to call an ambulance. Ms X says she suffered a panic attack and suffered significant distress. She complained to the Council.
6. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint acknowledging it had been at fault. It explained the person who had dealt with Ms X’s alarm on the date in question had since been removed from the service.
7. The Council has told us that in addition to this, it would be willing to pay Ms X £100 to recognise the impact its fault had on her. We could not add to the Council’s investigation, and it is unlikely we would recommend action that differs significantly to this. The Council has offered an appropriate remedy.
8. The complaint about Ms X's key safe being faulty is better considered by the Housing Ombudsman, as it relates to maintenance of facilities in her Council property.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we could not add to the Council’s investigation and our involvement would not lead to a different outcome

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman