Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delay delivering equipment to meet his care needs. The Council has already acted to remedy the injustice caused by the delay. Nor will we investigate the other parts of his complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council delayed delivering a ramp to his home after it agreed to provide one. He said this meant he could not get in and out of his house, so he had to purchase his own ramp privately. He wants the Council to reimburse him for the ramp.
2. Mr X also complained that the Council has only agreed to provide a ramp at one entrance point of his home. He said an Occupational Therapist made an unprofessional comment during a visit which caused distress.
3. Mr X paid for building works to make his home more accessible. He wants the Council to pay towards the cost of these building works.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
5. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
8. I considered the Care Act 2014.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The Council agreed to provide Mr X with a ramp. The ramp was out of stock on the scheduled delivery date so the Council could not deliver it. Mr X then purchased his own ramp and says he was told this would not be refunded.
10. Mr X says when an Occupational Therapist (OT) visited his home to discuss equipment, they said he could only have one ramp in his home, which he says is not suitable for his needs. He said the OT made an unprofessional comment about Mr X asking private builders to put a ramp in for him.
11. Mr X says he has had to pay for building works to make his home accessible.
12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delays by the Council in delivering the ramps. The Council has already upheld this part of his complaint and the equipment company has agreed to refund him for the cost of the ramps. This is an appropriate action to remedy the injustice caused. It has also acted to prevent a similar situation recurring by reviewing its procedures. An investigation into these matters would not achieve a different or more worthwhile outcome.
13. We will not investigate the Council’s decision to provide a ramp at only one access to Mr X’s home. The law requires councils to ensure people can safely enter and exit their home but there is no obligation to adapt more than one access. There is insufficient evidence of fault in this decision to warrant an investigation.
14. Nor will we investigate the OT’s comment. The Council has apologised for any offence this comment may have caused to Mr X. This is an appropriate remedy for any injustice caused and an investigation would not achieve a different or more worthwhile outcome.
15. Finally, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council should pay towards the cost of the building works. Mr X arranged these works privately and there is no evidence the Council agreed to provide funding for them. An investigation into this matter would therefore be unlikely to result in finding fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has remedied the injustice caused by the upheld parts of complaint and an investigation into the remaining matters would be unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman