Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in placing Mr X in a supported living property. There is not enough evidence of fault in the care provided to Mr X to warrant investigation by us.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained East Sussex County Council (the Council) placed him in a supported living property that had multiple defects that the borough council found required rectification. He said this caused him stress and anxiety and placed him at risk, and he had had to report the defects himself. He wanted an apology, a review of his care plan, a refund of part of the care element of his charges, and practice changes by the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X reported various defects in the supported living property while he lived there. The property was shared. The defects varied in significance. Evidence Mr X provided showed there was a book in which they were recorded. This showed they were reported and rectified. A letter from the borough council also showed a significant defect was fixed after it was called to inspect. Housing repairs and enforcement are matters for the borough council. East Sussex County Council was responsible for finding the placement and providing the care Mr X was assessed to need under his care plan. Mr X’s complaint against the Council is essentially that it should have known about the defects in advance and reported them. Investigation by us would be unlikely to find that it should have done. There is also no evidence that the care provided by the Council under Mr X’s care plan was absent. Therefore, investigation would be unlikely to lead to a recommendation that the Council should review its practice or refund care charges Mr X paid. The Council would in any case have to review Mr X’s care plan in the event of any change in his needs. Investigation by us would be unlikely to recommend a reassessment of his care needs just as a result of reported defects in the property where he was placed.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in providing for Mr X’s care to warrant our further involvement. We would also be unlikely to recommend the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman