Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s review of Mr Y’s care and support. The Council accepted it had not involved his brother, Mr X, in decision-making and support planning. It has apologised and taken steps to involve Mr X. We could not achieve anything meaningful by investigating the matter further, as the Council proposed suitable action in response to Mr X’s complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council had not properly dealt with his concerns relating to his brother’s (Mr Y’s) care and support. He said the Council:
• proposed removing sleep-in care from the supported living placement despite this contradicting Mr Y’s care plan and putting his safety at risk;
• did not consult with family or carry out any proper best interests process when considering this;
• had not shared any risk assessments;
• had not carried out any fire drill practice with residents; and
• failed to consider his request for information.
2. Mr X said the matter caused him significant stress and loss of trust in the Council. He wanted it to share information, reconsider the matter and appropriately risk assess.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
4. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

5. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X complained to us about the Council’s proposed removal of sleep-in care from Mr Y’s supported living placement.
9. The Council issued a complaint response to Mr X after he had brought the matter to us. The Council accepted it had not involved Mr X in the support planning for Mr Y. It said it would remind staff of their duties to involve family members in such matters, and apologised. It arranged to meet with Mr X to discuss the proposals.
10. If we investigated the matter, it is likely we would not make any recommendations that differ to the actions the Council already said it would take. Further investigation is not likely to achieve a different or more meaningful outcome. It is not therefore proportionate for us to investigate the matter.
11. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the organisation that considers complaints about how organisations respond to information requests. The ICO is best placed to consider this part of Mr X’s complaint and we will not consider the matter instead. It is open to Mr X to escalate this part of his complaint to the ICO.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not achieve anything meaningful by investigating the matter further, as the Council proposed suitable action in response to Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman