Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide transport to and from her adult son’s day centre. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider her complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s refusal to provide transport to and from her adult son’s day centre. She also complains the Council made a decision it was not qualified to do regarding a continuing health care (CHC) checklist and the Council’s handling of her 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 an investigation if we decide:
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X’s adult son, Mr Z, receives care and support from a day centre. Miss X wants the Council to provide transport for Mr Z to and from home and the day centre.
7. The Council refused to provide transport on the basis Mr Z had a motability car. The Council detailed its policy was that where an individual has a motability car, it will not provide Council funded transport. The Council advised that if the motability car was no longer suitable, Mr Z could have a buss pass or motability payment instead.
8. The Council also noted that even if it were to provide funded transport, this would only be to the nearest provision that could meet need. The Council considered Mr Z was not attended the nearest provision. The Council offered to assess the local day services nearer to Mr Z to identify which ones could meet Mr Z’s needs. However, Miss X declined.
9. I have reviewed the Council’s adult transport policy. This details the expectation is on the service user to meet their own needs for transport to access services. It also notes the Council will not normally provide funded transport for a person who:
• Chooses to attend a service which is not their nearest appropriate services.
• Is in receipt of a motability vehicle or mobility payment.
10. The role of the Ombudsman is to look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong. In this case, the Council appropriately assessed Mr Z’s needs prior to making its decision. Further, the Council’s decision was in line with its adult transport policy. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault.
11. Miss X said the Council officer who completed the CHC checklist for Mr Z was not qualified to do so. The Council confirmed the Integrated Care Board (ICB) had allocated an NHS CHC practitioner to complete a new full consideration for CHC. I am satisfied this is an appropriate remedy for the claimed fault and so an investigation is not justified as it would not achieve any further outcomes. If Miss X is unhappy about the outcome, then she would need to complain to the ICB and then to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
12. Finally, as we are not investigating the substantive matters Miss X complained about, it is not a proportionate use of our limited resources to investigate a complaint solely about the Council’s complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, there is another body better placed to consider her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman