Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s poor communication and record keeping. This is because the Council’s investigation and remedy was appropriate and proportionate. We therefore could not add to the Council's previous investigation and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s communication and record keeping in relation to continence products and a pendant alarm. Mr X said the matter caused him anxiety and distress as he was without a pendant alarm for several months. He wants the Council to apologise to him and provide him with a financial remedy for the injustice caused. He also wants the Council to ensure it improves its service to prevent a recurrence of faults.

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:

• 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X was in hospital. The hospital team was due to discharge him home. A social worker spoke with the hospital team at the time and asked for it to supply Mr X with a month’s supply of continence products upon discharge so that he had a supply until he was under the community continence service. Mr X asked the Social Worker for a pendant alarm he could wear once he was at home.
6. Several months later, Mr X complained to the Council and said it had failed to provide him with the continence products and a pendant alarm despite him requesting an update from the Council a few months earlier.
7. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint and said:
• its records show the Social Worker had contacted the hospital team in relation to the continence products but there was no record of any response. The Council acknowledged it may have caused Mr X uncertainty. It added the Social Worker can only offer advice and support in relation to continence products as the responsibility of supplying the products is under the health service; and
• it recognised Mr X had contacted the Council on two occasions asking for an update and that it had failed to respond to his request. It also said its records did not show it had ordered Mr X a pendant alarm even though it had done so. As Mr X was due to move into a care home, the Council was not required to take any further action in relation to the pendant alarm.
8. The Council accepted its communication with Mr X and its record keeping had been poor. It apologised to Mr X. This was appropriate and proportionate for any injustice caused to Mr X. The Council also said it would remind its team the importance of timely communication and accurate record keeping. This is what we would expect the Council to do. We will therefore not investigate Mr X’s complaint as we could not add to the Council’s previous investigation and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as we could not add to the Council's previous investigation and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman