Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care because we are satisfied with the remedy the Council has proposed.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mr Y complained about the Council’s failure to provide a replacement hoist for Mrs Y when hers broke during a service inspection. Mr Y says after he complained he was able to borrow a hoist while the other was repaired, but the Council’s attitude to arrange this was poor.
2. Mr Y says this caused him and his wife particularly distress at the idea of her being unable to get out of bed due to her illness and the staff attitude was insulting and upsetting. Mr Y says his wife’s illness is known to be made worse by incidents of stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. 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)
4. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. 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, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mr and Mrs Y and the Council provided, the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code and Guidance on Remedies.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In December 2022, Mrs Y’s hoist stopped working. Mrs Y uses a hoist to transfer out of bed. Mr Y contacted the Council to ask if it would be able to provide a spare hoist while the original hoist was repaired or if necessary, replaced. Mr Y says the Council told him it did not have spare hoists. He says he was later told it did have spare hoists but lending it to Mrs Y would put the Council over budget. Mr Y then complained, and a hoist was arranged four days after the original hoist became faulty.
7. Mr Y complained about the poor attitude of staff and the difficulties he had experienced. The Council responded in January 2023, acknowledging the fault and upset caused. It apologised, offered £300 for the upset caused and time spent dealing with the issue and explained that remedial action had been taken to prevent the issue recurring. This included:
• a new process where if the problem could not be dealt with within usual office hours it would be passed to an out of hours team;
• if the out of hours team could not correct the issue within the same day, the Council would then consider what help may be needed by the occupational therapy team;
• setting times scales with companies involved for responding to emergency situations, to ensure a response was given within two hours; and
• requiring the companies involved to review the case, so they could also consider learning points.
8. In February, the Council increased its offer to £500 and repeated its apology. In March it said it had been unable to find evidence of the comment allegedly made by staff but apologised for the upset caused and referred Mr and Mrs Y to us.

Analysis

9. Where we find a Council’s fault has caused an injustice, we seek to remedy this by putting a person back into the position they would have been in had the fault not occurred. We focus on the individual impact and the institutional improvement. While a modest payment is not able to remove the upset, it is able to recognise intended to be symbolic recognition of the emotional impact, rather than a financial punishment to an organisation.
10. Here, the Council have recognised the fault, apologised for this and the impact on Mr and Mrs Y and have taken steps to stop the problem from happening again, either to them or to others. While it has not been able to confirm Mr Y’s complaint about the attitude of officers he spoke to, it has recognised his upset and has apologised. It has also offered £500 as a payment, for the upset, which is in line with our published Guidance on Remedies.
11. As the Council has properly considered and investigated the complaint and its impact, it is unlikely the Ombudsman would be able to add to the original investigation. Further, the Council has offered a proportionate and appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by its fault which is in accordance with our own guidance. It is unlikely further consideration of this complaint would lead to a different outcome and we are satisfied with the remedy the Council has proposed. Therefore, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr and Mrs ’s complaint because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has proposed to remedy the fault and it is further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman