Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the outcome of the occupational therapy assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. Ms X also complains the Council shared her personal data without consent. It is reasonable to expect her to complain to the Information Commissioner on this point.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the outcome of her occupational therapy (OT) assessment following her request for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG).

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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X asked the Council for a DFG to fund adaptations to her home to help her with daily living.
7. The Council assessed her needs in person through an OT assessment. The OT wrote a report following her assessment, recommending several changes to her home.
8. Ms X disagrees with the OT’s recommendations. She wants additional changes including (but not limited to)
• specific bathroom fittings
• soft close kitchen cupboards
• specific kitchen storage
• tilt and windows
• a sensor light in the communal corridor.

She also says the OT failed to discuss problems with the garden and shed.

9. I recognise Ms X’s dissatisfaction with the OT’s assessment. However, the Council confirms the OT is suitably qualified and the report with her recommendations was scrutinised before it was approved.
10. I can see no sign of fault in the way the Council assessed and decided this matter. The Council explores the most cost-effective alternative in meeting a person’s needs. The Council’s suitably qualified officers have recommended adaptations to Ms X’s home to meet her needs. There is no sign of fault in this approach. We are not an appeal body. It is not our role to question the merits of a council’s decision where there is no sign of fault in the way the decision was reached.
11. If Ms X believes the Council has breached her data protection rights, it is reasonable to expect her to complain to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision on the recommendations for adaptations to her home. And it is reasonable for her to complain to the Information Commissioner about her data protection concerns.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman