Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to recommend the installation of a stairlift in Mr X’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s decision to refuse to recommend the installation of a stairlift in his home. He says the Council did not properly consider all the information in reaching its decision and the matter has caused him distress. He wants the Council to apologise for its failings, remove officers involved from their posts and agree to his request.

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. 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. Mr X uses both crutches and a wheelchair for mobility due to physical health conditions. He is awaiting surgery which he hopes will improve his mobility.
7. The Council assessed Mr X following his request for a stairlift. The Council’s occupational therapy assistant and a representative from the stairlift company spoke with Mr X and visited him at home to complete an assessment. The Council decided that although a stairlift could physically be installed in the property, it was not a viable option due to concerns about Mr X’s safety and its long-term suitability. It said there was a risk of Mr X falling while transferring onto the lift, and uncertainty over his long-term mobility following surgery. The Council instead recommended a through floor lift would be more suitable to meet Mr X’s needs.
8. Mr X disagreed with this decision. He complained the Council had not considered all the information and the temporary nature of his reduced mobility. The Council considered his complaint but did not change its position. It said it was open to him to request a reassessment, following his surgery and any associated rehabilitation.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The records show the Council appropriately assessed Mr X and considered his preference for a stairlift. It considered relevant information before reaching its decision that a through floor lift better met Mr X’s needs at the time of the assessment.
10. We cannot question a decision because someone disagrees with it. There must be evidence of fault in how the Council made the decision. In this case, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation. We cannot question a decision taken without fault.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman