Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care referrals without the complainant’s knowledge. Although this was upsetting for the complainant, the Council believed it was in the best interest. It has acknowledged it would have been better to tell the complainant about this referral and has apologised for communication errors and spoken with the staff member. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further, and the injustice does not justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council decided she needed referral for mental health services based on information from housing officers but never having spoken with her. It therefore came as a surprise when mental health professionals visited unannounced. This has affected Ms B’s trust in professional services and has been upsetting to think people are talking behind her back. Ms B would like an apology.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), 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. The Council has a wide range of duties under the Care Act 2014 to protect adults living in its area. It made referrals it felt necessary based on information it had received. But accepts it would have been best practice to contact Ms B about the concerns and the actions it was taking. The Council has apologised for failures in communication such as not returning telephone calls and the language used. The Council will speak with the relevant officer during their supervision meetings to improve future practice.
7. We do not investigate all complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
8. I understand Ms B’s upset and surprise at receiving an unannounced visit she was not prepared for. However, this would not be significant enough to justify our involvement. The Council has accepted it would have been better to let her know on this occasion. Although the Council did not apologise for this it has apologised for errors and acted to improve service. It would not be a good use of our resource to investigate solely to achieve another apology.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because Ms B’s injustice does not justify our resource to investigate. We are satisfied the Council has acknowledged errors and acted to improve service, and it is unlikely we would achieve anything significantly different.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman