Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to place her father in extra care housing in its area because there is not enough evidence of fault. And we will not investigate the Council’s complaint handling when we are not looking into the substantive issue.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council wrongly refused to accommodate her father, Mr Y, in extra care housing within its area. She says it has also delayed responding to her complaints.
2. Ms X says her father has remained in unsuitable accommodation for longer because of the Council’s fault.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Care and Support statutory guidance

7. Ordinary residence is crucial in deciding which council must meet the care and support needs of adults and their carers. Councils do this by deciding where the person is ‘ordinarily resident’. There is no definition of ordinary residence in the Care Act; the term should be given its ordinary and natural meaning.
8. A council may consider a person’s care and support needs can only be met if they are living in a specified type of accommodation, such as extra care housing. In this case the principle is the person placed ‘out of area’ is considered to continue to be ordinarily resident in the first or ‘placing’ authority area. They do not get an ordinary residence in the ‘host’ or second authority. The council which arranges the accommodation, therefore, keeps responsibility for meeting the person’s needs.

My analysis

9. Mr Y lives in a nearby London borough, Council B.
10. Ms X contacted the Council’s Adult Social Care team seeking that it place him in extra care housing within its area. She says it refused on grounds he was not ordinarily resident in its area.
11. The Council can decide whether someone is ordinarily resident in its area. We cannot find fault simply because a complainant disagrees with the Council’s decision or its interpretation of the law. There is insufficient evidence of fault.
12. Council B may arrange to place Mr Y in extra care housing in the Council’s area, in line with its responsibilities outlined at paragraph 8 above. That is a matter for Council B and not subject of this investigation.
13. Ms X also complains the Council did not respond to her complaints. However, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaints because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making and because we will not investigate its complaint handling alone.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman