Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to only supply a moulded seat for his child, rather than replacing the whole seat. Mr X also complains the Council has refused to reimburse him for the new chair he purchased privately. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to only supply a moulded seat for his child, rather than replacing the whole seat. Mr X said this was detrimental for his child. Mr X also complains the Council refused to reimburse him for the new chair he purchased privately.

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 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

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. Mr X’s child, Z, uses a moulded seat. The moulded seat needed replacing. Mr X wanted the Council to buy a new chair and frame for Z.
7. The Council confirmed the frame of the existing seat could be reused and so decided to replace the moulded seat, with the new moulded seat being placed onto the existing frame. The Council also noted this option was quicker than if it were to purchase a new chair for Z.
8. Mr X was unhappy with this decision as he felt it was detrimental to Z. This is because Z would not have use of his moulded seat and would need to use his wheelchair seating.
9. The Council’s said its offer was for the chair to be taken away for three and a half days. During this period, Z could use his wheelchair seating and be returned to his bed at appropriate intervals to alleviate the pressure on his body from the wheelchair. This would support Z’s positioning requirements and skin integrity. The Council noted this was done when Z did not have access to his moulded seating while on holiday. The Council said its proposed plan was comparable to this.
10. The Council also outlined clearly in its complaint response letter that it would not reimburse Mr X if he decided to purchase a chair privately.
11. An investigation is not justified as there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council has explained its rationale for why it would not purchase a new chair and appropriately considered how Z’s needs would be met while the chair was being replaced. As the Council has made its decision properly, it is entitled to make its decision and we cannot find fault with the decision itself.
12. We are also not likely to find fault with the Council’s decision not to reimburse Mr Z for the costs incurred in privately purchasing a new chair. This is because the Council had made it clear to Mr Z it would not reimburse him should he decide to buy a new chair.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman