Summary: Mr X complains that the Council failed to deliver an emergency food delivery meaning he was left without food. Mr X says he had to live on bread and water, which meant he could not properly take his medication, and this made him ill. He also complains that the Council failed to call him back. The Ombudsman upholds Mr X’s complaint and finds fault with the Council which caused Mr X injustice. The Council will apologise to Mr X for not calling him back, make a payment to recognise the impact of the faults, and review the way it handles reports about failure to deliver this emergency support service. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the Council has apologised to Mr X for failing to deliver the food.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, complains that:
1. an emergency food delivery was not delivered, and he was left without food for ten days; and,
2. he phoned the Council numerous times and asked for a manager to call him back, which the Council failed to do.
2. Mr X says this meant he had to live on bread and water alone for ten days, which meant he was not able to take his medication properly, and this made him very ill. He also says the Council has not apologised or compensated him for the poor level of service.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council provides an emergency support scheme for residents facing a crisis, emergency or disaster and who need help. In order to qualify for this service, the person must live in the area, be over 16 years old, and receive certain kinds of state benefits.
7. The Council’s emergency support scheme is discretionary. It does not give people cash. Instead, the emergency support scheme provides goods or services, for example white goods or food deliveries.
8. The Council says that all failures with this service are dealt with through its complaints procedure.

What happened

9. Mr X has physical disabilities that mean he has very limited mobility. Because of his disability, Mr X needs to take a lot of medication, and the medication needs to be taken with food. If he is unable to take his medication with food, this can make him very ill.
10. In September 2018, Mr X had serious financial difficulties. He contacted the Council who forwarded him to its emergency support scheme. The emergency support scheme assessed Mr X and found he was eligible for support. The emergency support scheme told Mr X that he would receive two deliveries of food. Mr X received the first food delivery.
11. The second food delivery was meant to be delivered on 26 September. It was not delivered. Mr X called the Council the next day, asking for a manager to call him back. The officer told Mr X that someone would call him back.
12. Mr X called the Council later that day, again asking for a manager to call him back. The Council said a manager was not available, so Mr X spoke to an officer from the Local Support team.
13. On 28 September, Mr X called the Council again because he had not been called back. He asked to speak to a manager. The officer said he could not transfer Mr X’s call to a manager because the officer was working from home. So, Mr X called the Council again. He spoke to a manager.
14. Records show that on this date, it was confirmed that the first delivery was made to Mr X but not the second. Records show that the food had been delivered to the wrong address. The delivery was returned to the supermarket and the order was cancelled.
15. Also on 28 September, Mr X complained to the Council. He said that the food had not been delivered and that he had repeatedly called, asking for a manager to call back, and they had not done so. Mr X explained that he needed to take his medication with food, and that he only had bread and water.
16. Records show that the complaints officer made a phone call to see how quickly it could be rectified. The officer noted that the complaint should be fully investigated and “if appropriate” issue a formal apology to Mr X and consider other compensation.
17. On 1 October, a manager called Mr X and confirmed with him that the second delivery had been successfully delivered on 29 September. She apologised that he had not received the food delivery on 26 September.
18. Later that day, Mr X called the Council and asked to speak to a manager from the complaints team. This call was made after 5pm.
19. Mr X called the Council the following day and spoke to a manager.
20. On 9 October, the Council sent Mr X its response to his complaint. The Council confirmed that it was at fault for delivering the food to the wrong address on the second occasion. It said this was due to “human error”. The Council apologised and said it had taken action to prevent this from happening again.
21. The Council accepted that a manager did not call Mr X back as he requested. It said that the officer could not transfer Mr X’s call because the officer was working remotely. But it accepted that this should not have affected the service Mr X received from the Council. It said this had been fed back to the relevant manager who would take appropriate action.
22. On 17 October, Mr X told the Council he was not happy with its response to his complaint and asked to escalate his complaint to the next stage of the complaints procedure.
23. In November, the Council sent Mr X its stage two response to his complaint. It said the emergency support scheme disputed that the food was delivered two weeks late. It said it had spoken to the supermarket that supplied the food and confirmed that the delivery had been made on 29 September. The Council said there was no scope for compensation for missed food deliveries because the service is an emergency scheme with a limited budget.
24. The Council apologised for the inconvenience caused by the officer not being able to transfer Mr X’s call to a manager because the officer was not working in the office.
25. Mr X then complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Failure to deliver food

26. Mr X complains that an emergency food delivery was not delivered, and he was left without food for ten days (part a of the complaint). He says he had to live off bread, which went stale, and water.
27. Mr X says that he had no other choice but to take his medication with bread and water. He says this made him vomit, which meant he could not keep his medication down. This in turn meant he was not properly medicated for the time he was without food.
28. Mr X says that the Council has not apologised for this and has refused to compensate him for the poor level of service.
29. The recording of the call between Mr X and the manager on 1 October shows that the manager apologised to him more than once for failing to deliver the food. In the Council’s stage one response, it confirmed it was at fault for not delivering the food and apologised. For this reason, I do not agree with Mr X that the Council did not apologise. I find that the Council has apologised to him for failing to deliver the food.
30. I find the Council is at fault for failing to deliver the food to Mr X. The Council accepted it was at fault in its stage one response to Mr X’s complaint. I find this fault caused Mr X injustice because he was left without food for three days, and this impacted on his ability to effectively take his medication.
31. Mr X says he was left without food for ten days. The food was meant to be delivered on 26 September. I have seen a confirmation email that the food was delivered on 29 September. Also, Mr X confirmed to the Council on 1 October in the phone call with the manager that the food was delivered on 29 September. This means that the food was not delivered for three days.
32. I do not agree with Mr X that he was left without food for ten days. However, I do find that he was left without food for three days. The key point of this complaint is that Mr X was left without food for an unacceptable length of time which could have had a serious impact on his health.
33. After issuing its stage one response, the Council took the following action:
• it looked at whether an order for a second week of food delivery could be ordered automatically, to minimise errors with addresses and to avoid delays;
• it suggested that the same officers work at the emergency support scheme for at least two weeks at a time to increase the likelihood of the same officer ordering both weeks of food for the applicant; and,
• it looked at setting up an alert or memo on the system for officers in charge of ordering the second week’s food delivery, which would prompt them to prioritise this work and make sure the food is correctly ordered.
34. It is positive that the Council took immediate steps to learn from its error.

Failure to call Mr X back

35. Mr X complains that he phoned the Council numerous times and asked for a manager to call him back, which it failed to do (part b of the complaint).
36. On 27 September, Mr X called the Council twice. He was told someone would call him back. He was not called back that day. He called the Council again on 28 September and spoke to manager.
37. Mr X is vulnerable, and this was an emergency support service. As such, I would expect the Council to treat any reports of a failure in the service as urgent.
38. I find the Council is at fault for failing to call Mr X back when it said it would. The Council accepted that it did not call him back as it should have in its stage one response to his complaint. This fault caused Mr X injustice because of the time and trouble he spent chasing the Council, and the impact the delays had on Mr X’s wellbeing, which I have outlined above.
39. In the Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint, it said that the officer who told Mr X he could not transfer the call failed to pass this message on to the relevant manager. However, the Council has since told the Ombudsman that the officer did pass the message on to the manager, but it was “misinterpreted”, and the manager then referred the call-back to another department to respond.

Agreed action

40. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for failing to call him back.
41. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr X of £200. This reflects the failure to deliver essential food, the impact this failure had on Mr X’s health and wellbeing, the failure to call Mr X back, and for the time and trouble Mr X spent contacting the Council.
42. Within three months of this decision, the Council has agreed to consider the way it records and deals with requests for call-backs about emergency support services it has failed to deliver.
43. The Ombudsman will need to see evidence that these actions have been completed.
44. I am satisfied that the Council has already apologised for failing to deliver the food on 26 September. It apologised during the phone call with Mr X on 1 October, and in its stage one response to his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr X’s complaint. I have found fault in the Council’s actions which caused Mr X injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused by the faults.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman