Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support Mr B received when he moved from one area to another. This is because further investigation by us could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained he was not given proper support under a managed move from one area to another. Mr B says his care was not transitioned properly; his new area tried to liaise with the Council but did not receive a response, and section 37 and 38 of the Care Act 2014 were not followed. Mr B says the Council dumped his belongings in his new property and it took a further nine months to rearrange his furniture.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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. The Council responded to Mr B’s complaints. It said while Mr B was living in its area he was provided with discretionary reablement support up to 1:5 hours a week to assist him with shopping, accessing medical appointments and prescriptions. Mr B advised it of his intention to move to another area in May. His new Council provided necessary equipment as his could not be transferred.
6. The Council says it agreed to arrange collection of Mr B’s prescriptions until delivery could be arranged but Mr B cancelled this advising he had made alternative arrangements. Mr B disputes this and says this was not the case. Mr B says he was left without his medication for a period of time. Case notes shows the arranged collection and delivery of Mr B’s medication was cancelled on 31 May. It does not say who cancelled the arrangement. Case notes for 1 June records a discussion with Mr B who said he was managing getting his new prescription and nothing else was required. Further investigation by us could not add to this or make a different finding.
7. Mr B complained about the company employed by the Council to move him as they had not put things in the correct place. Mr B says items were missing, were not packed properly and some were broken. The Council says as well as the moving company it commissioned, Make a Difference Tameside and volunteers helped pack items which were logically placed and clearly labelled. It says it had not planned to organise furniture in the new property and Mr B had not requested it unpack his belongings. We could not make a finding on who damaged Mr B’s property or say the Council was at fault for not unpacking or arranging his furniture when it had not been arranged or agreed in advance. The Council says its role under s37 of the Care Act is to ensure continuity of care when someone moves to another area. S38 of the Act relates to the duties of the new area. Further investigation by us could not add to this or make a different finding.
8. The Council says it went beyond its duties in this case, maintained contact with Mr B, liaised with his new Council, provided information and advice, and offered support with practical tasks. Further investigation by us could not add to this or make a different finding.
9. I understand Mr B has complained about the actions of his new Council which is currently being considered by it.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because further investigation by us could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman