Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care at a day centre. This is because an Ombudsman investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome and it is unlikely we would find any significant fault to justify our resource.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council paused his relative, Ms C’s, attendance at a day centre with little notice and was rude in communication. This impacted on routine and wellbeing. Mr 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• 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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

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. Ms C attends a day centre to meet some of her adult social care needs. Ms C should have provided incontinence pads since she started to use them in 2023 but never did so. The day centre provided these from surplus it had, but in May 2025 told Mr B it could no longer do so. Ms C could not attend the centre unless she brought incontinence pads with her. The Council correctly signposted Mr B to the NHS for support.
7. The Council acknowledges it could have told Mr B sooner about the declining stock of pads. This would have avoided causing him any avoidable shock and given time to plan. However, it is unlikely to have changed the outcome given Mr B did not provide the pads once he knew he needed to.
8. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further. There is no fault in the substantive issue of asking Ms C to provide incontinence pads to attend the centre. The staff need these to meet her needs and the Council has no duty to provide them. It may have raised Mr C’s expectations when the Council provided the pads for over a year, and he may have forgotten he should have been sending them, but that is not caused by Council fault.
9. Mr B says staff were rude to him, but I do not have enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman