Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to act in line with the outcome of her occupational therapy assessment to install an electric shower and shower mixer tap attachment regarding her difficulties getting out of the bath. The Council determined a bath lift was more suitable for Ms X’s needs. I have found no evidence of fault in how the Council reached this view.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has not acted in line with the outcome of her occupational therapy assessment in relation to her difficulties getting out of the bath. Ms X also says she requested a mixer shower tap for her bath but this had also been declined.
2. Ms X says that taking a bath is affecting her safety and because of this she only takes a bath once a week.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the information provided by Ms X;
• discussed the issues with Ms X; and
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents it provided.
6. Ms X and the Council had the opportunity to comment my draft decision before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Ms X lives alone. She was assessed by an Occupational Therapist (OT) on 3 May 2024. Ms X was observed to manage all transfers well and without any difficulties, she was independent in all aspects of mobility and managed the stairs without any difficulties.
8. Ms X reported she experienced difficulties with getting up and out of the bath and felt that a shower would be easier for her, as she would not have to sit in the bath. Ms X explained that she only bathed once a week when a family member was present in case she needed support.
9. Following the assessment the OT completed a request for installation of an electric shower. The OT stated an electric shower would enable Ms X to shower independently, more frequently and maintain dignity. As per the Council’s procedure, the OT sent the request to a senior officer (Officer 1) for consideration. Officer 1 declined the request and advised that bathing equipment, such as a bath lift, should be tried before any other options were explored.
10. The OT spoke to Ms X about the bath lift. Ms X said her grandchildren visited regularly and used the bath and she did not want to have to take the equipment in and out. Ms X asked whether she could have a mixer shower tap attachment. Ms X said she struggled to wash her hair in the bath and was currently washing it over the kitchen sink using a mixer tap attachment. The OT referred the request to Officer 1.
11. Officer 1 explained that if a bath lift met Ms X’s needs then this was a suitable option, and the Council would not take the visiting grandchildren into account. The Officer also said the mixer shower tap attachment raised concerns about temperature control and Ms X may have to wash her hair with a jug in the bath or continue as she was.
12. Ms X declined the bath lift. The Council wrote to Ms X and said it was formally closing her file as there was no further requirement for an OT to be involved in her care.
13. Ms X complained to the Council. Ms X said the Council had agreed to install an electric shower but failed to do so. Ms X also said the Council had declined her request for a mixer shower tap attachment even though she had offered to make a financial contribution. Ms X raised no concerns about using the attachment over the kitchen sink.
14. The Council responded to Ms X. It explained that a bath lift was recommended as this was considered the best option for providing safe access to bathing facilities for her. The Council said it would be happy to review and deliver a bath lift for Ms X if she wished to reconsider this option.
15. Ms X remained unsatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

16. It is not my role to decide whether the Council should install an electric shower or mixer shower tap attachment for Ms X. What I must decide is whether the Council acted properly in refusing to provide the equipment. The Ombudsman is unable to challenge a professional judgement unless there is an error in the way it reached the decision.
17. When an assessment identifies a need that would require an adaptation, the OT completes a form providing the reason for requesting the equipment identified. The form includes what else has been considered and why other options are not deemed suitable. In this case the OT sent the form to Officer 1 to review and consider the request for installation of an electric shower for Ms X.
18. It is Ms X’s view the OT had agreed to install an electric shower. The assessment states “OT to complete request for installation of an electric shower based”. It is not clear whether the OT explained the above process to Ms X. However, on the wording in the assessment I can understand why Ms X thought the installation had been agreed. Whilst the wording could have been clearer, I do not consider this to be fault.
19. Officer 1 reviewed the assessment completed by the OT which noted that Ms X was independent with her mobility and transfers. The Officer made a reasoned decision that a bath lift would meet Ms X’s needs. I am satisfied the Council considered Ms X’s concerns when considering the request for an electric shower. I find no fault in the way the Council reached its decision.
20. Ms X declined the bath lift and asked the OT to install a mixer shower tap attachment and offered to pay towards the cost. Officer 1 reviewed the request and was aware that Ms X was currently using a mixer tap to wash her hair over the kitchen sink. The Officer decided that a bath lift remained the most suitable option for Ms X’s bathing needs.
21. I can see no significant issue with how the Council considered the available information. The Council used its professional judgment to decide a bath lift was the most suitable and safest option for Ms X.
22. Based on the information provided I am not persuaded there is fault in the way the Council reached its decision not to install an electric shower or mixer shower tap attachment even though Ms X may disagree with it. As I have found no fault in how the Council made its decision, I cannot question the decision itself.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have found no fault by the Council in this case. It properly considered Ms X’s needs, so I cannot question its decision. I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman