Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in responding to the elderly alarm service. We could not add to the Council’s investigation or reach a worthwhile outcome. We are satisfied with the actions the Council took to acknowledge the distress caused by failures in its complaint handling.

The complaint

1. Ms C says when her relative, Mr D, used his elderly alarm service for support the service placed him on hold rather than giving reassurance. Ms C says they did not contact her for 45 minutes, during which time Mr D died. Ms C believes if the service contacted her sooner the outcome may have been different. Ms C is devastated and feels the Council has not been empathetic in its responses. Ms C wants the Council to accept responsibility and apologise. Some of what Ms C wants is disciplinary action and compensation for negligence.

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 or continue 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), 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. Elderly alarm services are a personal alarm scheme used for people to feel more secure living at home. Mr D used this service. Ms C says the service placed Mr D on hold for over ten minutes while it contacted the ambulance service. I understand this might have been distressing for Mr D in his time of need. As Mr D died, we can provide no remedy for any distress he suffered. It is also upsetting for Ms C.
7. Ms C complains the service did not contact her sooner. The Council explains it would only need to contact family to arrange access. As Mr D had a key safe the presumption was the ambulance service would gain access with keys. When the ambulance service arrived the key safe was empty, and at this point the Council needed to contact Mr D’s relatives to gain access. This is why there was a delay contacting Ms C.
8. While I understand Ms C’s distress, the Ombudsman cannot decide the outcome would be different. Only a coroner could decide if failures in service caused or contributed to a death. We also cannot achieve some of the outcomes Ms C wants. We have no powers to get involved in personnel matters, so cannot recommend disciplinary action. We cannot consider negligence claims, that is a legal matter and is for the courts.
9. The Council has given a thorough explanation of its actions. It was reasonable for the Council to act on the basis there would be keys in the key safe. It has acknowledged fault in its complaint handling, which compounded Ms C’s distress at an already difficult time. The Council has apologised and offered a symbolic payment of £250. Nothing can make things right for Ms C and acknowledge the impact of her loss, and how she feels the system failed Mr D. I do not consider the Ombudsman could add to the Council’s investigation or reach a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms C’s complaint because we could not add to the Council’s investigation or reach a worthwhile outcome. We are satisfied the Council has provided a thorough response and taken appropriate action to acknowledge the failures in identified.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman