The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about social worker provision and his current social worker. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council and an investigation by this office would not be able to add to the response the Council has already provided on the matter.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council will not agree his request to be allocated a social worker from a different council. He also complains his current social worker does not listen to him and only responds to his contact at the end of each week.
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, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained he wanted to be allocated a social worker from a different Council in the area where he currently lives. He also complained his current social worker does not listen to him and only responds to his contacts at the end of the week.
The Council explained he is allocated one of its social workers because it has been responsible for funding his care and support since he moved outside the Council’s area. In response to Mr X’s complaint it sought legal advice about whether Mr X could now be considered as ordinarily resident in Warwickshire where he currently lives. The legal advice suggested the Council contact Warwickshire to ask whether it would consider Mr X to be ordinarily resident there. The Council did so, and is currently awaiting a response. It will inform Mr X of the outcome once received.
In response to Mr X’s complaint about the social worker not listening or responding to him, the Council explained the social worker had agreed to respond to Mr X’s emails once a week and this is what she does.
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council and an investigation by this office could not add to the response the Council has provided via its own investigation. The Council has taken suitable action in response to Mr X’s request to have a social worker from another council. This will ultimately be a matter for the other council to decide. It has confirmed Mr X’s social worker responds to contact once per week as agreed. It is a matter for the social worker to decide how to manage her workload and which day of the week she provides her response.
Mr X also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint. We will not consider complaint handling in isolation where we are not considering the substantive issue. This is because it is not a good use of our limited public resources to do so.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault by the Council and we could not add to the response the Council has already provided on the matter.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman