Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council responded to Miss B’s communication. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains about the way the Council responded to her communication when she tried to contact one of its officers. She said she tried to contact a social worker several times to discuss her sister’s case but did not receive a response. She says the Council said her sister no longer had a social worker. Miss B says the situation has caused her significant anxiety and avoidable distress. She wants the Council to allocate a social worker to her sister and provide support to discuss a debt for care fees as she says her sister was entitled to aftercare under the terms of the Mental Health Act 1983.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant including the Council’s response to her complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss B said she tried to contact a social worker to discuss her sister’s case after receiving a debt recover letter relating to care fees. She said her sister should not have been charged as she was entitled to aftercare services in line with the Mental Health Act 1983. The Ombudsman considered a complaint about this aftercare services entitlement previously and will not consider a complaint about this again.
6. Miss B’s complaint to the Council referred to a failure of a named social worker to respond to her contact. She said she had tried several times to contact the social worker. When responding to Miss B’s complaint the Council said it had checked it records and could not find evidence to show Miss B had contacted the social worker.
7. The Council said if Miss B had contacted the social worker and the officer did not respond this would have been frustrating for her. It apologised if this was the case. It also confirmed her sister did not have an allocated social worker as the officer she had tried to contact was allocated to complete a specific task and was no longer involved. It provided details of how Miss B could contact the relevant department if she wanted to discuss her sister’s care and support.
8. We will not investigate this complaint as any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The Council apologised if its officer had failed to respond to Miss B and provided her with details of how she could contact someone.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman