The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on the suitability of its mobility training. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with its decision making.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council has failed to provide him with suitable mobility training. He considers the service provided placed him at risk and caused him an injury.
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 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 continue an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) 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) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council agreed to provide Mr X with mobility training to meet his care needs.
Mr X attended some sessions. However, he complained the trainer did not comply with the Highway Code, placed him at risk and caused him to suffer an injury. He also provided the Council with information from a road safety charity to support his concerns.
The Council’s complaint responses show it considered all the information Mr X provided. It confirmed it used accredited, qualified and trained mobility experts , knowledgeable with the highway code. It explained why it was satisfied with the service commissioned, despite Mr X’s concerns and the views he shared from the charity. It also found a lack of evidence of harm caused to Mr X and requested further evidence in support.
I am unlikely to find fault in how the Council reached its decision that the service was suitable. And, as it was Mr X’s choice to stop attending the sessions, I am unlikely to find the Council failed to provide the service due.
The courts are better placed to decide whether Mr X suffered an injury as result of the service provided. And it is reasonable for Mr X to go to court on this point if he wishes.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision making.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman