Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an Occupational Therapy assessment resulting in Miss X’s toilet being too high. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. Any ongoing delay by Miss X’s housing association is a matter for the Housing Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment resulted in too high a toilet being provided to her. She says this meant she was having problems accessing the toilet and was experiencing increased pain and discomfort.
2. Miss X also complained the complaint process was unnecessarily lengthy, and caused her stress and inconvenience. She said the Council should have acted sooner to remedy the situation swiftly. Miss X wanted a lower toilet to be installed without delay.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X needed a higher toilet seat as she was finding transferring on and off her toilet difficult. The Council’s OT assessed her and recommended a higher toilet seat. After the higher toilet seat was installed, Miss X found it was too high. She told the Council this was causing her increased pain and discomfort, and she was worried she would injure herself due to it being unsafe.
8. The OT reassessed Miss X and recommended a seat height between the previous and current heights. They confirmed their decision to Miss X’s housing association.
9. Miss X complained the OT must have initially measured the height incorrectly. She said there should have been a trial of the seat height before it was installed, but that this did not happen. However, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the OT’s original recommendation that would justify us investigating.
10. When Miss X informed the Council the new seat was too high, there was not an unreasonable delay in the OT visiting again to carry out a further assessment. Miss X would have liked this to have been agreed sooner, however there is insufficient evidence of fault in its response to her contact.
11. The OT assessed Miss X’s transfers on and off the higher toilet to consider her safety until a new seat could be installed, and they found she could safely transfer. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence of a significant personal injustice to Miss X that would lead us to investigate.
12. Any delay after the OT confirmed their new recommendation is a matter for the Housing Ombudsman. We cannot consider the Council’s actions as a registered housing provider. It is open to Miss X to contact the Housing Ombudsman for consideration of what happened after the OT revised their recommendation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council’s Occupational Therapist. Any ongoing delay by Miss X's housing association is a matter for the Housing Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman