Source · LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman)

Surrey County Council

LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman) Other Reference 24-000-057 Sector Adult Care Services Category Disabled Facilities Grants Decided 17 June 2024

View Surrey County Council scorecard

Full decision

The Ombudsman's final decision

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment that a stairlift would meet her mother’s needs, instead of the downstairs toilet the family wanted. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

Ms X complained, on behalf of her mother, Mrs Y, about the Council’s decision that a stairlift would meet Mrs Y’s needs when the family asked for a downstairs toilet. Ms X said Mrs Y refused the stairlift because it was not appropriate as the stairs were too narrow and there is only a small landing. She said the housing association had also said it would not recommend a stair lift due to the layout.

Ms X said the Council’s decision meant her mother was becoming dehydrated and had contracted a urinary tract infection because she was not drinking enough due to her worries about accessing the toilet upstairs.

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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

How I considered this complaint

I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.

I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

Mrs Y asked for a downstairs toilet and other adaptations. The Council discussed the request at a home visit in January 2023. In February 2023, an occupational therapist (OT) carried out an assessment. They said a stair lift would meet Mrs Y’s needs. It also offered a commode for use downstairs, which Mrs Y refused.

The Council asked two contractors to quote for installing the stairlift, neither of which indicated any difficulty in doing so. The stair lift was discussed again with Mrs Y at a home visit in March 2023. The Council’s record of that visit says Mrs Y had agreed to a stair lift and would return signed forms to confirm this by the end of the week.

The Council shared its assessment with the housing association, which owns the property where Mrs Y lives. The housing association accepted the Council’s recommendation for a stair lift and declined to extend the property.

We will not investigate this complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council took the action we would expect. An OT carried out an assessment and decided that a less expensive option would meet Mrs Y’s needs. There is no evidence of fault in the way it decided this. Therefore, we cannot comment on the decision reached.

Further, if we investigated and found fault, it is likely we would ask the Council to carry out a fresh assessment. The Council told us it had recently received a request for a fresh assessment, which it had agreed to carry out. Therefore, there is nothing worthwhile we could achieve by investigating.

Final decision

We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement and no worthwhile outcome we could achieve.

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

View original on LGO (Local Governme… website

Other decisions involving Surrey County Council

Reference Date Summary Outcome
25-015-766 Upheld
25-004-026 Other
25-005-021 Upheld
25-016-771 Other
25-006-993 Upheld
View all decisions for this organisation