Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Lifeline services provided to meet adult social care needs. The Council accepted fault and has taken satisfactory action to acknowledge the impact on the complainant and improve future service. There is not enough evidence to suggest a wider problem that would justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr B is concerned about a lack of safety procedures in the Lifeline services provided by the Council to meet adult social care needs. Because the Council has not provided a copy of the relevant procedures Mr B does not believe they exist and worries anyone using the Lifeline service is at risk. Mr B wants the Council to review or create safety procedures for the Lifeline service.

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
• 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.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Guidance on remedies.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Lifeline services are a personal alarm scheme used for people to feel more secure living at home. Mr B uses this service. An incident occurred where Lifeline officers entered Mr B’s home without his knowledge, causing shock to his wife who was at home alone.
8. The Council has explained the human error that caused the incident. It has apologised to Mr B, offered £100 to acknowledge the impact of the fault, and explained the actions it has taken to improve future service. The Council says safety procedures exist, but it is not proportionate to review them based on this one incident.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation or achieve a different outcome that would justify our resource to investigate. While we understand Mr B’s concerns, we also understand the Council’s response. The Council has accepted fault, acknowledged the impact on Mr B with an apology and symbolic payment, and improved future service with staff training and amending the contract. This was a one-off error which has been explained and acted upon. There is not enough evidence of a wider systemic problem that would justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman