Summary: A man complained about the mental health services he received. The Ombudsmen will not investigate the complaint because they cannot achieve the outcomes he seeks.

The complaint

1. A man I will call Mr P complained about Lancashire County Council (the Council) and Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). He said:
1. His psychiatrist did not provide letters he needed for a court case
2. His care coordinator “messed up” his appointments and was difficult to contact by phone
3. His psychologist did not take notes of their appointments
4. He was discharged without good reason and left unclear about his diagnosis.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsmen investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. We use the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If there has been fault, the Ombudsmen consider whether it has caused injustice or hardship (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(1) and Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended). If it has, they may suggest a remedy. 
3. Our recommendations might include asking the organisation to apologise or to pay a financial remedy, for example, for inconvenience or worry caused.  We might also recommend the organisation takes action to stop the same mistakes happening again.
4. The Ombudsmen have the power to jointly consider complaints about health and social care. Since April 2015, these complaints have been considered by a single team acting on behalf of both Ombudsmen. (Local Government Act 1974, section 33ZA, as amended, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA)
5. The Ombudsmen provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. They may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if they believe:

• it is unlikely they would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify their involvement, or
• it is unlikely they could add to any previous investigation by the bodies, or
• they cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a review or appeal.

(Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(2) and Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr P by phone and in writing. I considered complaints correspondence provided by the Trust. I shared a draft of this decision with Mr P and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. I asked Mr P on the phone what outcome he hoped to achieve through his complaint to the Ombudsmen. Mr P said he did not want an apology or a financial remedy, he wanted managerial change at the Trust.
8. The Ombudsmen cannot recommend managerial change at an organisation.
9. In his comments on a draft of this decision, Mr P said he wanted a face to face apology from the head of the organisation. He also said he wanted the Ombudsmen to say whether there was clinical negligence.
10. The Ombudsmen do not recommend that the heads of organisations make face to face apologies.
11. The Ombudsmen do not make findings of clinical negligence. That is a matter for the courts.

Back to top

Decision

12. As we cannot achieve the outcomes Mr P wants, the Ombudsmen will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman