The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the recommendation of an Occupational Therapy assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Mr X complained on behalf of his mother, Mrs Y, after he asked for an Occupational Therapy assessment for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). He said the Occupational Therapist (OT) had recommended a through-floor lift to make his property accessible for Mrs Y to live with him. However, he said the OT had not considered information from other professionals about Mrs Y’s ability to access the proposed lift. He said that OT assessment also relied on him moving into a smaller bedroom that was not accessible for his needs. Mr X wants a new OT assessment.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended) The Council commissions the National Health Service (NHS) to provide occupational therapy assessments on its behalf. In this complaint, the NHS provided the substantive response on behalf of the Council. Therefore, in this complaint I refer to the Council, even where the NHS completed the action.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. That means we will not take another look at a decision and come to our own conclusions. Instead, we look at the process the Council followed when it made its decision. If we consider it followed these processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
The Council’s complaint response confirms the OT completed a site visit to assess Mrs Y’s accessibility needs in the property. It said the OT considered her medical conditions and determined a through-floor lift as the most appropriate and feasible way to meet her needs.
The complaint response also: Addressed concerns Mr X raised about the through-floor lift, explaining how these could be mitigated, or why it did not consider them a risk.
Confirmed it had considered the medical evidence provided by other professionals in its decision making.
Confirmed an OT had considered Mr X’s needs, and he had not been assessed as needing additional bedroom space.
Although Mr X is unhappy with the outcome of the OT recommendations, we will not investigate this complaint. That is because I am satisfied the Council followed the correct processes in completing the OT assessment and making its recommendations. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman