Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council’s commissioned Care Provider dealt with the complainant’s request for a new support worker. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Care Provider commissioned by the Council to provide supported living arrangements failed to recognise issues with the support worker allocated to him. He says the Care Provider did not consider his request for a different support worker and told social services he had declined support. Mr B says the issues caused him distress and he feels the matter has not progressed. As an outcome he wants the issue resolved and for the Care Provider to assign him a different support worker.

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
• 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council commissioned the Care Provider to provide housing and supported living arrangements for Mr B. He complained to the Care Provider because he felt it had refused to accept issues he was having with the support worker allocated as his keyworker.
6. The Care Provider responded to the complaint and referred to concerns it had about Mr B engaging with support. The Care Provider said it was concerned about the impact this was having on Mr B’s physical health, general wellbeing and the condition of the property. The Care Provider said it wanted to arrange a review with the Council’s adult social care team to discuss the best way forward.
7. Mr B was dissatisfied with the Care Provider response as he felt it had not considered his complaint properly or followed it complaints procedure. The Care Provider considered the complaint further.
8. The Care Provider said it had discussed Mr B’s support with its staff and a social worker. It said it had amended his support arrangements to provide support on the days he wanted. It also said it would allocate a different support worker who would meet with Mr B monthly.
9. The Care Provider found it had not handled Mr B’s complaint in line with its complaints procedure. It apologised to Mr B and offered a symbolic payment.
10. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint as any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The Care Provider remedied the injustice caused to
    Mr B when it investigated his complaint. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr 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