Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the service provided by an advocacy organisation funded by the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about an advocacy service the Council funded to support people to make complaints when necessary. Mr B says he was unwell following contact with the advocacy service in 2023 and could not progress his complaint about medical treatment he received from the NHS until 2025 when his health improved. Mr B says the advocacy service did not tell him about the 12 months’ time limit to complain to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) about his health complaints. He says the PHSO told him he would have won his case and likely received compensation of around £2500. Mr B says the matter has caused him significant distress because he now cannot progress complaints he has about the NHS. As an outcome he wants the Council to apologise and pay him £2500 representing the compensation he would have received if he could progress his complaint.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; 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. Mr B complained to the Council about the support he had received from an advocacy service it funded. Mr B said he had two complaints about medical treatment he had received from the NHS and he wanted to complain to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). He said after initially contacting the advocacy service in 2023 he became unwell and this prevented him from progressing his complaint until 2025. It was then he learnt about the time limit to make a complaint to the PHSO. He complained the advocacy service should have told him about this sooner.
6. The initial complaint response from the advocacy service noted several contacts it had with Mr B between June 2023 and early 2024. The advocacy service found it had told Mr B about the time limit to complain to the PHSO on several occasions. It said it had tried to contact Mr B to progress his complaint, but it did not always receive a response from him. The advocacy service did not uphold Mr B’s complaint about this issue.
7. When the Council responded to Mr B’s complaint that it funded the advocacy service and was responsible for monitoring the quality of delivery. It found the investigation about the time limit and response given by the advocacy service was satisfactory. It said the advocacy service could not progress Mr B’s complaint i.e. send it to PHSO without his explicit consent (which he had not given). It said the PHSO had considered the reason Mr B provided to set aside the time limit was not sufficient to set the time limit aside and investigate his complaint. It said as an improvement the advocacy service would ensure timescales are communicated and discussed at the first meeting with service users.
8. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating his complaint. The Council remained responsible for the advocacy service it commissioned. On balance, it is likely Mr B had several discussions with the advocacy service and when it reviewed its records the advocacy service found it had told Mr B about the time limit. Mr B said the PHSO told him he would have received around £2500 compensation if it had considered his complaint. We cannot say this would have been the case or achieve the outcome Mr B wants.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman