Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about failures in communication about adult social care support. The injustice is not enough to justify our involvement. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has already taken to apologise and offer to meet, and it is unlikely we would achieve anything further.

The complaint

1. Mr D says the Council failed to properly respond to his complaint, and the suggested terms of meeting. Mr D feels he is spending a lot of time chasing the council for support and information and feels ignored and disrespected. Mr D’s relative, Ms E receives adult social care from the Council. Ms E is withdrawing because of the breakdown in communication and relationship. Mr D wants a thorough complaint investigation, a recorded meeting or to have a legal representative present, an apology, staff training and a clear plan for Ms E’s support.

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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

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. We do not investigate all complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
7. The Council has accepted some communication failures and has apologised. While this will be frustrating and cause some unnecessary time and trouble, it is not enough to justify our resource to investigate.
8. The Council has offered to meet with Mr D and Ms E, and this would be a good opportunity to resolve issues and improve the working relationship to move forward. Mr D says he has set out the terms he will accept for the meeting, but the Council has not responded. If it has not done so, the Council should contact Mr D to agree terms of meeting and then arrange it.
9. Mr D is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr D’s complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, and it is unlikely we would add to the apology and offer of a meeting.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman