Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an unexpected visit relating to adult social care. The Council was entitled to decide to visit, though would have been better to have told the complainant in advance. The complainant was not in at the time of the visit, and we do not consider there is sufficient injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council has not sent paperwork she asked for about Mr C’s care. Ms B says the Council has given out her and Mr C’s private information. Ms B says the Council arranged an unannounced visit with Mr C’s relative, X. Ms B says the Council failed to arrange suitable accommodation for Mr C. Ms B says the Council’s actions has impacted her and Mr C’s mental health, and she no longer trusts the Council.

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 significant enough injustice to the person who complained 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.

(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 C is an adult with social care and support needs. Mr C lives with Ms B, and she is his main carer. X told the Council they were going to visit Mr C even though Ms B had told them it was not a good time. The Council officer decided to attend the visit, though failed to tell Ms B. So, Ms B was surprised when she saw on her doorbell camera that X and a Council officer had visited her property. Ms B felt the Council had colluded with X to arrange the visit so has lost faith in the Council. Ms B also found e-mail communications with the Council officer to be rude and contradictory to what had previously been discussed and agreed.
6. I understand Ms B’s surprise at the unexpected visit. However, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation. The Council was entitled to decide to attend the visit X was making, to support the parties involved, though it would have been better had it told Ms B in advance. There is also not enough evidence of a significant injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation. Although it was a surprise to Ms B, she and Mr C were not home at the time of the visit so there was no unexpected confrontation or intimidation of people knocking on the door.
7. I also understand Ms B’s upset by some of the e-mail communication she had with the Council’s worker. But I do not consider we could add to the Council’s response. I agree some of the wording is unclear in its meaning, but I do not find the e-mails to be threatening, harassing or intimidating. The Council has spoken with the relevant officer about the tone and content of communication.
8. Ms B’s concerns about not receiving paperwork and about the release of private information would be better addressed by the Information Commissioner’s Office who is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights.
9. Ms B says the Council has not met Mr C’s accommodation needs. This was not part of the complaint I have seen to the Council and so I have not considered it. Ms B needs to give the Council an opportunity to consider this first.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation. I do not consider we could add to the Council’s response or reach a different outcome. We cannot achieve the outcomes Ms B wants in relation to certain decisions about Mr C’s case because they are decisions for the Council to make not the Ombudsman, such as whether to change social worker.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman