Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about the conduct of their social worker and the Council not funding decluttering services for their home. That is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

The complaint

1. X complains about:
• the conduct of their social worker;
• the Council not funding a decluttering service for their home; and
• the Council’s handling of their complaint.
2. X says:
• the social worker’s conduct made them feel distrustful and unsupported;
• the lack of decluttering support affects their ability to carry out daily activities at home; and
• the Council’s complaint handling has caused them frustration.
3. X wants the Council to escalate their complaint and fund professional decluttering services for their home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. X says their social worker did not contact them for six weeks and contacted health services without their consent.
8. The Council considered these concerns through its complaints procedure. It found the social worker was on annual leave during the six-week period and had informed X of this. It was satisfied the social worker otherwise maintained appropriate contact. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
9. The Council also found the social worker contacted health services without first obtaining X’s consent. It upheld this part of the complaint and said it would remind staff about the need to obtain consent before sharing information.
10. The Council has taken action to address the identified fault. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome. Therefore, we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Funding the decluttering service

11. Before deciding whether it should fund decluttering services, the Council has said it needs to review X’s care and support needs.
12. The Council says it has made several attempts to complete a review of X’s needs. It says X cancelled three appointments. X disputes this and says the Council is responsible for the delay. The Council says it remains willing to complete the review.
13. I acknowledge there are conflicting accounts about why the review is not yet completed. On the evidence available, it is unlikely an investigation by us could establish responsibility for the delay. The Council has confirmed it continues to engage with X, and hopes to complete a review. The is the correct course of action to assess their need for a decluttering service. Therefore, there is nothing worthwhile we could achieve by investigating this part of the complaint. In any event, the Council remains willing to complete the review.

Complaint handling

14. As a publicly funded body we must be careful about how we use our resources. As we are not investigating the substantive issues of X’s complaint then it is not a good use of public resources to investigate the complaint handling in isolation. Therefore, I will not investigate this part of X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate X’s complaint because further investigation would not achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman