Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s emergency care call service. We could not add to the investigation that has already taken place, and the Council has agreed to our recommendations to apologise to Mr Y and his family and pay them £250 to recognise the distress the incident caused them. We are satisfied with this, along with action the service has already taken.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the care call service, on behalf of the Council, did not deal appropriately with her father’s (Mr Y’s) emergency call to it. The operator could not properly hear Mr Y but ended the call and did not take further action. Mr Y had to seek help from family instead. This caused significant risk to Mr Y and trauma to the family. The service said it would provide training to the operator however Miss X is not satisfied enough action has been taken.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and Guidance on Remedies.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y used his emergency call bell to seek urgent help when he had pneumonia. He spoke with a call handler who believed, based on his responses, Mr Y did not require help. However, Mr Y did need help. He was able to contact his family for this.
7. Miss X complained to the Council because Mr Y was put at risk, and both he and his family experienced distress due to the incident. The Council agreed the call handler should have waited longer to ascertain the nature of Mr Y’s call, and had made a presumption based on little information. However it said it had listened to the call recording and it was understandable that the call handler believed Mr Y did not need help.
8. I have listened to the recording and viewed the service’s relevant procedure, which gives appropriate instructions to its call handlers. I have considered the actions the service took in response to the incident and I am satisfied sufficient learning has taken place. We could not add anything of value to the investigation that has already taken place.
9. Mr Y was placed at significant risk due the fault, however because he was able to get help from his family he did not suffer harm. He was put to inconvenience, and he and his family experienced distress. I am not satisfied the Council fully addressed the impact on Mr Y and his family of the event. The Council has agreed to my recommended action which I am satisfied is appropriate.

Back to top

Agreed action

10. The Council agreed to my recommendation to apologise to Mr Y and his family. It will also make symbolic payments to acknowledge the risk of harm and inconvenience Mr X experienced, and the distress the incident caused to him and his family. It has agreed to pay £250 in total, which should be broken down into £150 for Mr Y and £100 for the family. The Council has agreed to take this action within a month of my decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we could not add to the investigation that has already taken place, and we are satisfied with the action the Council proposes to take.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman