Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the support provided by the Council’s supported living placement. This is because we could not add to the previous investigation completed by the Council.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council’s supported living placement failed to provide the tailored support agreed to her daughter, Miss Y. She also complains about the standard of living in the placement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
3. 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 could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X complained to the Council that Miss Y did not receive the support provided in her personal budget, she was left alone for long periods of time, and received delayed communication. She also says Miss Y did not have access to a washing machine, had mould in her bedroom which led to damage to her clothes, and it took 6 months to reply to her request to move.
7. The Council has investigated by speaking to the Director of the supported living placement and reviewing the records held at the support living placement.
8. The Council agrees Miss Y did not receive the support she had been assessed for. However, this was a result of her declining the support when offered. It explained Miss Y had developed her independence skills and had the skills to complete tasks independently, so she did not need the support provided for in her personal budget. The Council advised records show there was support available 24/7 should Miss Y have chosen to access this, and when she wanted support, she could text staff to ask for support. Miss Y’s preferred method of contact was by text message which the staff adhered to, sending daily welfare messages.
9. The Council confirmed Miss Y had access to the homes washing machine and she preferred to use the laundry room when no other residents were around. It was noted that Miss Y had mould in her annex; she was encouraged to ventilate the room to reduce condensation although she declined to do this. She was provided with a dehumidifier and cleaning products to reduce the risk of mould developing. Miss Y did not raise ongoing concerns. The Council said when the home became aware that Miss Y wanted to move on from supported living, they told the Council and followed the proper next steps.
10. We will not investigate this complaint because we could not add to the previous investigation completed by the Council. Therefore, it is unlikely we would reach any different findings and conclusions. Further, it appears likely the injustice claimed was due to Miss Y choosing not to engage with the support available to her, rather than caused by any fault by the Council. Miss Y is presumed to have mental capacity (as there is no evidence to suggest otherwise) and can therefore make her own choices.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we could not add to the previous investigation completed by the Council. Therefore, an investigation is unlikely to lead to any different findings or outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman