Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her father, Mr Y, about the Council’s lack of intervention to help a vulnerable neighbour, Mr A, who was unable to manage his home. The Ombudsman found the Council was not at fault because it did offer suitable support to Mr A.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained on behalf of her father, Mr Y, about the Council’s lack of intervention to assist a vulnerable neighbour, Mr A, who is unable to manage his home.
2. This caused an odour nuisance for Mr Y, who has health conditions which are being affected. The neighbouring property is also a fire hazard, which is a danger to Mr Y and residents of the adjoining property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• Mrs X’s complaint and supporting information.
• Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
• The Care Act 2014.
• The Care and Support Statutory Guidance.
• The Mental Capacity Act 2014.
• Environmental Protection Act 1990.
• The Council’s Safeguarding Adults Process.
6. The nature of some of the information sent by the Council means I am unable to provide Mrs X with a copy of it or refer to it directly. This is because it contains personal information about third parties that is confidential.
7. Mrs X and the Council both had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. The Care Act 2014 requires local authorities to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. Where local authorities determine that a person has any eligible needs, they must meet these needs.
9. Local authorities have statutory safeguarding duties to protect vulnerable people from abuse or neglect. They must make enquiries when they think a person with care and support needs may be at risk of abuse or neglect.
10. A person must agree to any service from the local authority. If they refuse but continue to appear to have care and support needs, the local authority must offer an assessment. Where a person is at risk of neglect but refuses an assessment, local authorities should continue to keep in contact with them.
11. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 says every adult has the right to make their own decisions and must be presumed to have capacity to make a decision unless it is established they lack capacity. Just because a person makes what look like unwise decisions, they should not be treated as lacking capacity.

Back to top

What happened

12. I have summarised below some of the key events leading to Mrs X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what happened. I have omitted Mr A’s personal information.
13. Mr Y lives in a flat owned by a housing association. Mr A lives in a flat below Mr Y. Neighbours have complained about smells from Mr A’s home since 2016. The Council assessed Mr A in September 2016.
14. Neighbours raised concerns about Mr A’s living conditions in March 2017. Specifically, about the state of his home, smell, and vermin.
15. The Council carried out a hoarding assessment and held a strategy meeting in July 2017. It discussed Mr A’s hoarding assessment with the Fire Service and local care services. It referred the matter to its legal services department for advice about its responsibilities under the Care Act in cases of self-neglect.
16. Mr A was admitted to hospital in August 2017 and then discharged into respite care.
17. Mr A’s social worker contacted the Council’s environmental health department for advice about the condition of Mr A’s home. It was determined it was a landlord – tenant issue which the landlord must resolve. Mr A’s flat was cleaned by the housing association in September 2017.
18. The Council started its safeguarding adults process in September 2017. It closed the enquiry in October 2017. The Council considered the risk remained and it would continue to monitor Mr A.
19. Mr A returned to his home in March 2019. His social worker visited Mr A’s home and was approached by Mr Y. The social worker records that Mr Y shouted she was a disgrace, had a responsibility to Mr A, and had allowed him to live in that way. He said Mr A’s home was a fire hazard.
20. Mr A’s social worker passed Mr Y’s comments on to the housing association. She asked for the smoke alarms to be fixed, and whether a fire risk assessment was needed.
21. Mr A was admitted to hospital in April 2019. Mr A’s social worker spoke to him in May 2019 about his housing situation and the impact on his tenancy. The Council also assessed Mr A’s capacity in May 2019.
22. A meeting took place in June 2019 between Mr A’s social worker, the housing association, and housing officers. They discussed Mr A’s tenancy, capacity, and arranging a Fire Service inspection.
23. The Council carried out a needs assessment for Mr A in July 2019. It also received advice from its environmental health department. It was determined the Council only has powers to intervene if there is outdoor waste. Its powers under the Environmental Health Act do not extend to the way someone chooses to live in their own home. Indoor waste is the responsibility of the landlord, or in this case the housing association, under the terms of the tenancy agreement.
24. Mr A’s social worker recorded she met with Mr Y in August 2019 but could not speak as he kept interrupting. The same thing occurred when she tried speaking to Mrs X. Mrs X then spoke with the Council. She had concerns about Mr A’s home and the way his social worker spoke to Mr Y. She asked how Mr A was allowed to live like that and without care from the Council. The Council referred Mrs X to the housing association.
25. Mrs X complained to the Council on Mr Y’s behalf on 9 August 2019. She said the Council ignored Mr Y and a social worker was rude to him. She also said the Council failed to manage the health and safety risks posed by Mr A’s living conditions.
26. The Council set up a case conference in response to the complaint. This included the Fire Service, environmental health, housing officers, and the NHS community care.
27. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint on 9 September 2019. It said:
• The social worker did not intend to be rude to Mr Y, but it was difficult to maintain a dialogue as Mr Y was agitated and angry. It said officers must be able to perform their duties without being insulted by members of the public.
• It could not share information about the support it provides to Mr A. It confirmed its safeguarding procedures, the meetings it had with other agencies, and the intervention plans.
• It is difficult to intervene where a person has capacity, but it still tries to engage with them. Making unwise choices does not mean a person lacks capacity.
28. Mrs X brought the complaint to the Ombudsman on 29 October 2019. She said the Council failed on act on Mr A’s horrendous living conditions and he lacks capacity to care for himself.
29. Neighbours made further complaints in November 2019. The housing association sought a possession notice lasting 12 months which Mr A must comply with.
30. The Council sent its final complaint response on 3 January 2020, reiterating what it states above at paragraph 13.
31. The Council started another safeguarding enquiry on 23 January 2020 after more concerns were reported. The enquiry concluded on 13 February 2020.

Back to top

Response to enquiries

32. The Council told me Mr A has been assessed as having capacity to make decisions about his care and accommodation. He spent time in residential care due to health issues which resulted in hospital admissions.
33. The housing association worked with Mr A to help him engage with services. He has often been in a state of severe neglect and hoards things. This creates health and fire risks. Mr A finds it hard to accept support, but it has been offered several times. Sometimes Mr A accepts, sometimes he refuses. It is the Council’s view Mr A makes unwise decisions about his health and living conditions.
34. The Council has now been able to secure improvements and agree a plan to improve Mr A’s quality of life.

Back to top

Analysis

35. This was a challenging situation which clearly caused Mr Y some distress. Mrs X and Mr Y were concerned for the well-being of Mr A and did not consider the Council offered him suitable support.
36. I have considered all the records available to me, including Mr A’s needs assessments, capacity assessments, and care and support plans. While I cannot go into any details about the contents of these documents because I do not have Mr A’s permission, they confirm the Council kept in regular contact with him and offered him support on several occasions.
37. When Mr A declined support, or would not participate, which was often the case, the Council continued to monitor him. Mr A does not lack capacity, so the Council cannot compel him to accept support.
38. The Council also involved partner agencies, such as the NHS, Fire Service, and the housing association. Mr A’s situation was the subject of several internal meetings, multi-agency conferences, and safeguarding enquiries. The Council also took advice from its legal services and environmental health departments.
39. The Council determined it did not have powers to take action against Mr A over the condition of his home, and that improvements were the responsibility of the housing association under the terms of the tenancy agreement.
40. The Council took the steps we would expect and offered suitable support to Mr A. It is very unfortunate that Mr A’s situation has negatively impacted on neighbours, including Mr Y, but that is not the fault of the Council. I recognise Mr X and Mr Y do not agree, and do not think the Council did enough, but I have seen no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault because it did offer suitable support to Mr A.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman