Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove transport to a day centre from an adult social care plan. The person using the service has died so we cannot consider the impact on them. We do not consider there is a significant enough injustice to the person complaining to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council discriminated against her relative, Ms C, due to her disability. Ms B says the Council removed an assessed care service without any discussion and no consideration of the impact. Ms B says this caused her significant stress, and the time and trouble making alternative arrangements.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. We do not investigate all complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
7. We can no longer consider Ms C’s injustice, because she has died so we could provide her with no remedy. Ms B raises her own injustice. It was stressful and time consuming making alternative transport arrangements to ensure Ms C’s attendance at a day centre could continue. But I do not consider Ms B’s unremedied injustice is significant enough to justify an Ombudsman investigation. The Council has apologised to Ms B for miscommunication about whether Ms C would have to fund and arrange her own transport.
8. Even if we decided there was a significant injustice to justify investigation, we may not find enough evidence of fault by the Council. Ms C’s care plan included transport to the day centre, so to change that the Council would need to complete a review or reassessment of Ms C’s adult social care needs. The Council says its Moving and Handling Team completed a risk assessment. The Council says it held a best interest meeting which Ms B attended. Different methods of transporting Ms C were trialled before it was decided there was not a safe option, and the day service withdrew the transport. The Council says it offered to provide a different way to meet the carers need for respite other than Ms C’s attendance at this day centre. It is likely the Council followed the correct process to make its decision, and the Ombudsman cannot question or criticise it even though Ms B disagrees with it.
9. The Ombudsman cannot make findings of discrimination as that is a legal matter. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed. The Council has explained the reasons for its decision, the day centre’s transport was not safe for Ms C or those helping her. The Council made a best interest decision under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. If Ms B was not happy with the outcome of the best interest decision, there was a right to challenge this at the Court of Protection.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because there is not significant enough injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation. It is also likely we would not find enough evidence of fault or reach a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman