The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council has communicated with Mr B. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.
The complaint
Mr B says the Council told his supported banking provider to take £2000 from his Direct Payment account without telling him and failed to communicate with him the way he wants it to. Mr B says the Council told him it was going to reduce his hours and said it would tell the Council in the area he wants to move, he is uncooperative.
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 may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of bodies such as banks. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
The complainant had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.
My assessment
The Council says Mr B’s relationship with his supported banking provider broke down and a Social Worker supported him to find another provider. It explained it does not have a contract with Mr B’s previous supported banking provider and he will need to raise a complaint with them directly. We could not add to this. We cannot consider complaints about banks.
Mr B complained the Council refused to provide audio correspondence as a reasonable adjustment. The Council says Mr B can telephone and says it has provided an email option for him to use if this is easier. It says it changed from sending communications in audio format to sending letters in large print as Mr B can read documents in large print. It explained the options offered meet his needs and are more cost effective and timely.
The Council’s duty under the Equality Act is to ensure service users are not disadvantaged because of their disability and can access services. The Council has explained the ways Mr B can contact it and has satisfied itself that Mr B can read large print documents. It has sent information in this format which Mr B has read. While Mr B may prefer audio communication, we are satisfied the Council has considered ways in which Mr B can send and receive information and there is not enough evidence of fault with the Council’s actions to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.
Mr B says the Council said it was going to reduce his care hours in August 2021. The Council says it reassessed Mr B in November 2020 and there has been no changes since that time. Mr B complained to the Ombudsman about a reduction in his hours. We found no evidence of fault with Council’s action in that case. We cannot investigate the same matters again.
Mr B says he is going to move and is concerned the Council will tell the Council where he proposes to move, that he is uncooperative. Mr B will need to raise a complaint with the new Council if following his move, he feels is not being treated fairly.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman