Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his son’s day placement not having a talk/call box. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the alleged fault has not caused any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about his son’s day placement not having a talk/call box. He wants his son to have up to date communication technology.

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 and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X’s son, Mr Z, lives in a shared lives placement and attends a day centre. Mr Z uses a picture exchange communication system (PECS) to communicate his choices.
7. Mr X wants Mr Z to have a different communication system. He’d like Mr Z to have access to a tablet with a communication app on it. He is unhappy Mr Z does not have access to his tablet while at the day centre.
8. In February 2024, the Council explained to Mr X they trialled using a communication app on Mr Z’s tablet. However, when both communication systems were available, Mr Z showed a preference to use his PECS to communicate, rather than the tablet. The Council also confirmed Mr Z was using his PECS to good effect.
9. In March 2024, the Council repeated the above information to Mr X and confirmed it had made a referral to the Speech and Language Therapy Team (SALT) to assess Mr X’s communication needs and to recommend any additional resources that may support Mr Z’s communication.
10. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. The Council has shown consideration of the alternative communication method Mr X would like Mr Z to use. However, the Council has explained Mr Z prefers to use his PECS over the tablet. While I appreciate Mr X would prefer for Mr Z to use the tablet to communicate, the Council cannot force Mr Z to use another communication method.
11. The Council also appropriately referred Mr Z to the SALT team. This is the relevant service that is best placed to assess Mr Z’s communication needs and to identify if there are any additional resources that can support his communication.
12. In addition, an investigation is not justified as the alleged fault has not caused Mr Z any significant injustice. While a tablet may not be available to Mr Z while he is at the day placement, there is no evidence this has caused Mr Z any difficulty or detriment. This is especially because Mr Z can communicate effectively using his preferred PECS.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the alleged fault has not caused any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman