Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s treatment of a supported living provider. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X is a director of an organisation which supports adults with independent living. He complained the Council had had failed to support the new accommodation set-up by the Organisation and instead:
• provided false information to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) that the accommodation was providing personal care,
• provided false information about the accommodation to other Local Authorities, and
• stopped paying housing benefit for tenants at the accommodation.
2. Mr X said the Council was trying to force the Company to reduce capacity in the new accommodation. He said the Council’s actions were damaging the Organisations reputation and placing jobs at risk. He wants the Council to reinstate housing benefit and stop discriminating against the Organisation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

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. In its complaint response, the Council said it had visited the new accommodation but had concerns around:
• the quality of the accommodation and furnishings,
• the number of people the Organisation intended to house within the accommodation, and
• the location where the Organisation has set-up the accommodation.
9. The Council said the Organisation had not ensured the landlord arrangements met specialist supported accommodation arrangements. It said the Organisation had set-up as a private landlord therefore there would be a shortfall in housing benefit payment. It provided information to Mr X about how the Organisation could become a Registered Housing Provider partner. It said Mr X had not confirmed the Organisations landlord status therefore current payments were on hold.
10. The Council also set out its Quality Assurance monitoring process. It said any concerns identified within that process were shared at meetings with partner agencies including the CQC. It stated it had information sharing arrangements in place with other authorities in the Greater Manchester area, therefore also shared concerns with these areas.
11. Although Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s complaint response we will not investigate. The Council has set out its concerns about the current accommodation in accordance with its requirements. It has followed its Quality Assurance and information sharing processes. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement. If Mr X believes the Council’s actions are slanderous and damaging the reputation of the Organisation, that would be a matter for the courts.
12. The Council has asked Mr X to confirm the Organisation’s landlord status so it can process the housing benefit claims. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman