The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr G’s complaint about the Council’s interactions with him. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mr G wants. There is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.
The complaint
Mr G complained the Council: failed to investigate abuse and neglect and failed to advise him of his right to advocacy; undertook a Care Needs Assessment at an unsafe time, when he did not want a social worker to attend, and was interrupted and prevented from stating what he wanted done during the assessment; lied that he had given his consent to share confidential information about him and shared personal information.
failed to check call logs and claimed it had not breached confidentiality.
Mr G says he should have been given an opportunity to discuss the findings of his complaint at the time. Mr G says although the Council has agreed to reallocate his case to a new social worker, he wants an independent third party to be included in all communications to ensure his rights and wishes are respected and wants the independent third party to be present at all face to face meeting and wants meetings to be recorded.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council considered and responded to Mr G’s complaints and further investigation by us could not add to its response. While Mr G says the findings of his complaint should have been discussed with him at the time, these were the Council’s findings. If Mr G disagrees or believes there are inaccuracies/ omissions regarding the findings he can ask it to put a copy of his views on the file alongside those of the Councils.
Mr G had contacted the police about accessing his bank account, a forged signature and access to social care so there was nothing further warranting consideration under s42 of the Care Act. Mr G says he wanted the Council to assist him accessing his bank account. The Council provided Mr G with advice on how to set up a bank account and referred him to the bank’s website for further details on how to do this if he wanted to pursue setting up a bank account so could access his own account without involvement from his appointee. The Council advised Mr G to contact the bank or check out the website regarding bank accounts. We could not say this is fault.
The Council says it contacted Mr G on 29 April and suggested a follow up appointment on 6 May, but Mr G did not confirm this appointment. Following further concerns, received from Mr G on 12 May, it arranged to visit him on 19 May and commenced a Care Needs Assessment. The Council says it emailed Mr G with the proposed actions on 24 May which included, with his permission, an offer to refer him to advocacy services. If Mr G wants the Council to refer him he can contact it, provide his permission, and request the Council refer him to this service. We could not make a finding on whether Mr G was interrupted or not listened to during the assessment because we were not present. If the assessment contains inaccuracies or omissions Mr G can explain to the Council what they are and ask it to consider these points further.
Mr G says the Council has shared personal information about him without his permission. The Council says it has not. It would be reasonable for Mr G to ask the information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider the evidence he has regarding the breach of his personal information. Information about the ICO can be found on the website below: https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/data-protection-complaints Mr G wants the Council to appoint an independent third-party to be included in meetings and correspondence with him. I have not seen any evidence that Mr G has been assessed as needing this level of intervention, and without a specific need we would be unlikely to make a finding of fault if this is refused. Mr G can request this of the Council or give it permission to refer to advocacy services who may be able to provide this support, however, if there is no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. The Council has agreed, following Mr G’s request for a different social worker, to allocate him a new social worker when one becomes available even though it found no fault with the actions of the social worker involved. We could not add to this point or make a different finding.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr G’s complaint because further investigation could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mr G wants. There is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman