Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Care Provider failing to meet her neighbour’s needs. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Care Provider and the injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Care Provider is failing to meet her neighbour’s needs who is exhibiting anti-social behaviour. She said the neighbour’s behaviour is having a negative impact on her and the wider community. She wants the Care Provider to recognise it is not meeting her neighbour’s care and support needs and to consider moving them to a location better suited to their needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Care Provider.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Care Provider delivers care and support to Miss X’s neighbour.
6. Miss X raised concerns to the Care Provider about her neighbour's behaviour. She said her neighbour shouts at other residents and uses inappropriate language towards them, litters the area with items from her home and threatens the care workers. Miss X said she was concerned about her neighbour’s mental health and wanted the Care Provider to consider the matter as a safeguarding issue.
7. The Care Provider responded to Miss X and said it:
• had raised her concerns with the local Council;
• was regularly reviewing Miss X’s neighbour’s situation with other relevant bodies; and
• had reported the incidents Miss X had raised to the police.
8. The Care Provider had advised Miss X to contact the police if she felt unsafe due to her neighbour’s behaviour and provided her with details on how to contact the local Council’s safeguarding team if she had further concerns about her neighbour.
9. Miss X also said the Care Provider had been unprofessional in how it had responded to her when she had previously raised concerns. The Care Provider said there was no evidence which suggested it had responded to Miss X outside of its professional guidelines however, it would use her feedback to improve any future communication.
10. Miss X was unhappy with the Care Provider’s response and that it had delayed responding to her complaint.
11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Care Provider to justify an investigation. The Care Provider considered Miss X’s concerns and reported them to the relevant bodies. It also advised Miss X correctly to raise any further concerns she had with the police and the local Council. The injustice is also not significant enough to warrant an investigation.
12. We will also not investigate how the Care Provider managed Miss X’s complaint as we are not investigating the substantive matter.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Care Provider and the injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman