Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about supported living. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained to the Council about his son’s, Mr Y’s, supported living. He said the care staff were smoking in front of Mr Y and were not supporting his personal care needs properly. He said the Council was restricting Mr Y’s visits to his property and was not involving him in discussions about Mr Y’s care.
2. He said the Council’s actions were impacting both on himself and Mr Y. He wants the Council to keep him fully involved and improve its service.

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))

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. In the Council’s complaint response, it outlined an occasion a staff member had smoked whilst speaking to Mr X. Mr Y was not part of that conversation and was in a car at the time. The Council said it had a smoking policy, but it had introduced a support plan for Mr Y with guidance for staff around taking breaks and smoking. As the Council has taken steps to address Mr X’s concerns, we will not investigate. Further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.
7. The Council’s complaint response also set out the personal care provided to Mr Y. It fully considered the concerns Mr X raised. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council is providing this care to justify our involvement.
8. The Council said it was not restricting Mr Y’s visits to Mr X’s property. It said Mr Y needed two-to-one support when not in his own home. It said Mr X had said he could not accommodate two staff members in his property for visits; therefore, one person had to wait outside. The Council said it was not reasonable for staff members to sit in a hallway for a duration of Mr Y’s visits. Instead, it suggested alternative locations for a visit. There is nothing to suggest the Council is attempting to restrict Mr Y’s contact with Mr X. Further investigation by the Ombudsman will not lead to a different outcome.
9. The Council said it had involved Mr X in discussions about Mr Y’s care. It gave examples of this. It said it could not send him written updates as Mr X had changed his email address and had not allowed the Council to share this address with the responsible manager. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman