Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to pay him compensation for the poor services he and Mr E received from one of its contractors. This is because the Council has apologised for its failings and explained what action it has taken to minimise the risk of similar occurrences in the future. We are satisfied the apology and actions taken by the Council remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr C complained about communication and failure to deliver equipment for Mr E from one of the Council’s contractors. Mr C complained:

• he had the inconvenience of having two scheduled deliveries on the same day;
• he received conflicting information from the equipment provider via text messaging and customer service personnel;

a revised planned delivery did not go ahead;

• A delivery turned up without prior contact.

2. Mr C says the poor service had a significant impact on him as he had to travel and make himself available to receive the deliveries for Mr E. Mr C wants financial compensation for his time and trouble.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council upheld Mr C’s complaints and acknowledged the customer service he experienced regarding the delivery Mr E’s medical equipment was not of a good standard. It apologised for the unacceptable negative experiences he suffered and breakdown in communication from the company who had been awarded the contract for delivering medical equipment.
7. The Council says it receives monthly reports from the company on meeting its key performance indicators which has relatively few complaints, less than 1% across people receiving over 2300 items of equipment. It explained there was an increase in the number of complaints in December and January during the Omicron wave. The most common reasons for complaints over the past 3 months was poor communication and incomplete delivery of equipment, which reflected Mr C’s complaints. The Council says the company explained the difficulties were in recruiting and retaining trained technicians and supply chain issues. The Council says the company is trying to address the concerns and has increased salaries and expects to have a full complement of experienced technicians shortly. In addition, it has redesigned depots to increase the capacity for storing more equipment.
8. The Council acknowledged the difficulties Mr C had experienced and explained what it had done to reduce the likelihood of a similar occurrence. Mr C says he wants financial compensation for the time and trouble he incurred during this period. However, while we recognise the inconvenience and upset this would have caused Mr C, it is not significant enough to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. We are satisfied the actions taken by the Council to improve processes and procedures and a sincere apology remedies the injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint because we are satisfied with the actions taken by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman