- Submitted
- Acknowledged
- Response Due
- Response Actual
- No Stage Two for Adult Social Care (ASC) Complaints
Background
Acknowledgment
The acknowledgement refers to appropriate officer but fails to identify this person, so questions of appropriateness need to be raised.
The acknowledgement failed to state if the complaint was an ASC Complaint or not.
Response
The response was received AFTER the deadline set in the Acknowledgment
The response also incorrectly advised the wrong escalation procedure.
This has been attributed to the responding person using the wrong template in the response.
I discuss the issue Wrong escalation procedure AKA Wrong Template
Stage One Response
The Stage One response acknowledged procedural faults but failed to provide substantive remedies. The Council cited cost as the primary basis for refusal and noted the presence of an existing dropped kerb nearby. However, this assessment reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the specific access barrier in question.
Stage Two Response
This delayed response raises further administrative questions.
When the surveyor enquired about this issue, it was considered that there was an alternative way to meet the need by using the dropped kerb 3-4 meters away.
Because no representative from the Council has conducted an in-person site assessment, this conclusion relies entirely on desktop assumptions. Proposing that an alternative route be used instead demonstrates a failure to properly evaluate the real-world impact of utilizing that alternative on a wheelchair user's independence and safety.
Video
To provide clear evidence regarding the Council's proposed alternative, the video below demonstrates the practical limitations of the existing dropped kerb referenced in their response.
It then poses a request for information:
We appreciate that you have indicated you do not wish us to consider alternative options, and we would be grateful if you could share your reasons so that they can be fully considered.
The Council's insistence on pre-determined outcomes without meaningful consultation undermines confidence in the integrity of this complaint process. Previous interactions reflect a consistent pattern of administrative assumptions being prioritized over documented accessibility requirements.
Example... Electric Wheelchair
Advocate
Ombudsman
- The Ombudsman started their investigation, but I was not contacted.
- Ombudsman ended their investigation on
They refused on
The Ombudsman has not yet published the investigation
Outcome
We are sorry that the outcome of the meeting with Senior Management and the Occupational Therapists was not communicated to you.
Due to an administrative error, COM/7189 should have been logged as an Adult Social Care complaint and as such the escalation information in the response was incorrect. Please accept our sincere apologies for this, and if you remain dissatisfied the next stage of escalation is to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO)
This has proven to be a recurring administrative error. I discuss the issue Wrong escalation procedure AKA Wrong Template
The administrative error took 23 days to resolve.