Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council dealt with requests for equipment he needed to aid his everyday life and the Council’s communication with him, including its complaint handling. We found fault because the Council failed to adequately communicate with him and consider what other action it could take when equipment was delayed. To remedy the injustice caused by this fault, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment and review some of its processes.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council acted too slowly to arrange replacement equipment necessary for him to live as independently as possible. He also says it took too long to arrange new equipment that had been agreed and that he was not kept properly updated on the progress of either item. Mr X complains the Council also followed the incorrect process when handling his complaint.
2. Mr X says the delay in sourcing the equipment caused him significant distress and frustration. He says the Council’s complaint handling error has caused him ongoing frustration as it has happened before.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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. I have considered all the information Mr X provided and discussed this complaint with him. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
6. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened.
8. Mr X is disabled. The nature of his disability means he uses various aids to assist his everyday activities. Mr X complains that requests for a rope ladder (the ladder) to aid his movement in bed and replacement batteries for his hoist were dealt with too slowly by the Council.

Rope ladder

9. At the end of April 2023, an occupational therapist (OT), assessed Mr X and agreed that the ladder should be ordered for him. The Council asked its third-party supplier (company A) to quote for the ladder on the same day.
10. The Council ordered it at the beginning of May 2023, and the OT confirmed this to Mr X the following day.
11. In mid-May 2023, and after an email from Mr X, the OT clarified the estimated delivery date of the ladder would be around the end of July 2023. The OT emailed Mr X to advise of this and said she had emailed company A to see if the ladder could be provided earlier.
12. Towards the end of June 2023, Mr X emailed the Council to say company A had no record of the order for the ladder and had therefore not delivered it.
13. At the end of June 2023, the Council advised Mr X that company A would be able to deliver the ladder at the beginning of July 2023. It said company A would contact Mr X to organise delivery.
14. At the beginning of July 2023 and after the suggested delivery date, Mr X contacted the Council to say that company A had not delivered the ladder.
15. A week later, the Council contacted company A to ask why the rope ladder had not been delivered.
16. A further week later, and after a further chase from Mr X, at his request the Council logged a complaint with company A.
17. The next day, company A contacted the Council to advise of supply issues with the ladder.
18. The Council chased company A for an update at the end of July 2023.
19. At the beginning of August 2023, the Council chased company A again on the delivery of the ladder. It asked if company A could approach a different supplier.
20. In mid-September 2023, company A confirmed to the Council that it had delivered the ladder to Mr X. It apologised for the delays and said this had been addressed internally.

Hoist batteries

21. In early-mid July 2023, Mr X contacted the Council to advise the battery for his hoist was causing issues.
22. In mid-July 2023, the Council asked company A to supply two replacement batteries.
23. The Council communicated with both company A and the manufacturers of the hoist so that an order could be placed for the batteries.
24. The Council sent an email to Mr X to advise that a request had been made to supply replacement batteries.
25. At the end of July 2023, the hoist manufacturer advised the Council it had delivered the batteries to company A.
26. The next day and at the beginning of August 2023, the Council chased company A to check they had been received and to ask when they would be sent out to Mr X for delivery.
27. A week later, company A advised the Council the batteries were being delivered to Mr X that day.

Mr X’s complaints to the Council

28. Mr X complained to the Council in mid-July 2023.
29. The Council sent its stage one response in mid-August 2023. This letter invited Mr X to ask for his complaint to be reviewed should he remain unhappy.
30. Mr X contacted the Council the next day to ask for his complaint to be escalated. He also asked the Council to clarify why it was again (as it had done with previous complaints) treating the matter as a corporate complaint which would give him review rights rather than it being treated as an adult social care complaint which was a one stage process.
31. Two days later, the Council emailed Mr X to apologise that the incorrect template had been used for his response.
32. The Council completed a stage two review and sent this to Mr X in late-September 2023. The Council apologised for the delays in Mr X’s equipment arriving, agreeing that they were unacceptable. It said delays lay with the provider and were out of the Council’s control. The response also said the onus should not be on residents to chase for action but that appropriate updates should be provided as and when necessary. The Council signposted Mr X to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Rope ladder

33. Evidence provided by the Council shows the rope ladder was ordered at the beginning of May 2023, as the Council had advised Mr X. Evidence also shows that at the end of June 2023, the ladder was still being classed as out of stock at company A.
34. I acknowledge there is evidence of the Council making contact with company A about the delay with the ladder, particularly in July 2023. However, the Council’s chronology of contacts with company A, which it sent to me, is not fully supported by evidence. The Council’s stage one complaint response to Mr X sent in mid-August 2023, stated it had been in ‘constant email communication’ to chase the delivery of missing items.
35. In relation to the ladder, I disagree with this. After the chase in the middle of July 2023, there was another chase at the end of the month and a request for company A to look for a different supplier at the beginning of August 2023. Mr X had by now been waiting for the ladder for over three months.
36. After the Council’s August chase, it took no further action in relation to the ladder until company A said it had been delivered around six weeks later. Despite the stage one complaint response mentioning constant contact, it gave no further update as to when delivery might be or progress on identifying a different supplier as the Council had asked company A to do.
37. I agree with the Council’s view that it cannot be held responsible for supply issues that company A might have experienced. However, in the circumstances of this complaint, I am satisfied the Council allowed things to drift after the beginning of August and should have been more proactive overall, especially when it was clear that there was no sign of the ladder being delivered. There is no evidence to suggest the Council considered what other action it could take when the delay had no end in sight. The Council has a responsibility to ensure aids and equipment are delivered to those who need them, in a timely manner. This lack of action is fault and would have caused distress, frustration and inconvenience to Mr X. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Hoist batteries

38. I have reviewed the timeline of the replacement batteries. I am satisfied the Council was proactive in sourcing, ordering and chasing their replacement for Mr X’s hoist. I do not consider there is any fault in the Council’s actions here.
39. There is, however, only one email from the Council to Mr X in mid-July 2023. This advised him the items had been ordered. Mr X complains he was not kept updated about the progress of the battery replacement. I agree. There is no other evidence to say that Mr X was aware of what was happening after the batteries had been ordered, in terms of lead times, delivery or fitting. Given the nature of his constant use of the hoist, I am satisfied that in the circumstances of this complaint, the Council should again have been more proactive in communicating with Mr X. This is fault. It would have added to the distress and frustration he was already experiencing about the ladder. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Complaint handling

40. Mr X complained the Council persistently offer him a stage two complaint review, despite his complaints being under the adult social care remit which is a one stage process.
41. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed that of the eight complaints registered for Mr X in the previous 12 months, four of these used the incorrect template and therefore offered him an escalation when they should not have done.
42. I acknowledge that after Mr X pointed out the error to the Council, it emailed him to apologise. I also acknowledge it said he could use that email as proof the complaints process had been finished which would allow him to approach the Ombudsman at that time and that Mr X chose instead to escalate the complaint to stage two.
43. I further acknowledge the Council’s comment to me that Mr X may have several complaints open at any given time and some of these are statutory complaints (one stage) and some corporate (two potential stages). However, I am satisfied that the Council should consider what type of complaint it is before sending its response to Mr X and to ensure that previous mistakes are not repeated. This is fault. It would have added to the frustration Mr X felt at the Council having made this mistake before. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Draft decision comments

44. My draft decision suggested the Council consider giving Mr X a named contact for any future complaints. In response to my draft, the Council advised that Mr X already had a named contact but that it considered the relationship between the officer and Mr X had broken down. The Council has now agreed to consider giving Mr X a different named contact instead. I have reflected this in the agreed actions section below.

Back to top

Agreed action

45. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the date of my final decision:
• apologise to Mr X for the lack of communication regarding the ladder and replacement hoist batteries, and for offering the incorrect escalation process for his complaint;
• pay Mr X £300 as a symbolic payment to reflect the distress and frustration caused by the issues identified above;
• consider reviewing how it logs and decides on which type of complaint it is being presented with by a resident so that the correct sign off is used for the initial complaint response; and
• consider giving Mr X a different named point of contact for any future complaints regardless of their type.
46. Within three months of the date of my final decision, the Council should put a process in place to ensure people are not disadvantaged by supplier failure or delay when providing assistance equipment to those who need it.
47. The apology written should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies on making an effective apology.
48. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

49. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman