Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the complainant’s son was not provided with temporary washing aids. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that the Council failed to provide her son with temporary washing aids meaning she had to pay for him to shower at a hotel. Mrs X wants the money she paid to the hotel to reimbursed.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X contacted the Council after she faced difficulties washing her disabled son. An Occupational Therapist visited Mrs X’s home and carried out an assessment of the washing facilities. They recommended equipment be trialled and gave Mrs X advice on how to wash her son.
8. The equipment was trialled but was unsuccessful, so further equipment was ordered, but this was out of stock. A further assessment was carried out which resulted in a referral being made for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) in order for adaptations to be made.
9. Upon receipt of Mrs X’s complaint, the Council arranged a further assessment to be carried out by a different Occupational Therapist who reached the same conclusions.
10. Whilst the issues raised by Mrs X relate to the Council’s actions in 2022, I have exercised discretion on our 12-month rule. This is because the Council suspended its investigation into Mrs X’s complaint until after legal proceedings had concluded and has only recently told Mrs X it would not now consider the matter further.
11. However, I will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because I have seen no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with these matters. It is for the Occupational Therapist to exercise their professional judgment to decide what measures should be put in place to meet the needs of Mrs X’s child. The Occupational Therapist appropriately visited Mrs X’s property before reaching their decision and making the recommendations they made. We cannot overturn a decision if it has been made properly.
12. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman