The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the outcome of his occupational therapy assessment. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the outcome of his occupational therapy (OT) assessment. Mr X wanted the Council to provide him with a new toilet because he was struggling to use the one in place. The Council decided his needs could be met via an adaptation to his existing toilet.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) We do not start 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)) We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained to the Council about the outcome of his OT assessment after Mr X reported pain and difficulties using his toilet seat following surgery, because it was too low.
The OT assessment recommended equipment, a raised toilet seat, Mr X could use with his existing toilet to meet his needs. Mr X complained he needed a replacement toilet.
Mr X reported that using the raised toilet seat caused him some discomfort. He requested a new toilet. As a result, the Council sought input from Mr X’s GP. The GP did not identify any medical reason why Mr X would need a replacement toilet in favour of using the current one with the adaptations provided.
The Council told Mr X that whilst it acknowledged his view that a replacement toilet would be better for him than an adapted one there was no evidence to support this and that the current adaptation met his needs. It suggested that if Mr X still wished to pursue the option of a replacement toilet he could discuss it with his housing provider, although Mr X would be responsible for the costs.
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because, whilst I note Mr X’s dissatisfaction with the Council’s decision, there is no sign of fault by the Council here. It has assessed Mr X in person via suitably qualified officers who have used their professional judgement to reach a decision on how Mr X’s needs can be met. It considered Mr X’s comments and sought advice from his GP who confirmed there was no medical reason for Mr X to require a replacement toilet instead of the adaptations provided. We are not an appeal body and it is not our role to question the merits of the Council’s decisions where, as here, there is no sign of fault in the way in which its decision was reached.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman