Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about her daughter’s placement at the Council’s commissioned independent living accommodation. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault and a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council’s commissioned independent living Care Provider placed her daughter, Miss Y, next to a tenant with challenging behaviours. Miss X said it affected her daughter’s health and caused Miss X anxiety and distress. She wants the Council to acknowledge it acted with fault and provide her with a financial remedy.

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
• 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss Y has a neurodevelopmental health need. Miss X said her daughter required a calm and quiet environment. Miss Y had a placement at the Council’s commissioned independent living accommodation. Miss X said the tenant living in an adjacent flat to her daughter had behavioral needs. She said the tenant was loud, they would play loud audio from the TV, loud music and sometimes wander into her daughter’s flat.
6. Miss X complained to the Care Provider. She said it was aware of her daughter’s needs and that it was aware of the tenant’s behavioral needs before her daughter’s placement started yet it placed her daughter next to the tenant. Miss X said there was evidence supporting this. She said the tenant’s behaviour was affecting her daughter’s health.
7. In response to Miss X’s complaint, the Care Provider:
• said it had no supporting evidence which showed it was aware of the tenant’s behaviour before Miss Y’s placement started;
• said Miss X also did not provide any evidence to support her claims of the Care Provider being aware;
• had carried out an investigation in relation to the noise levels coming from the tenant’s flat. Following this, the Care Provider accepted the current noise was greater than it had observed during Miss Y’s assessment. It acknowledged it affected Miss Y’s health and wellbeing but said this did not mean it knew of the problem before her placement;
• looked into reducing the noise however it was limited to what it could do due to building limitations; and
• although it did not uphold Miss X’s complaint, it said it would review its assessment process around compatibility to ensure placements were suitable.
8. Following a meeting, Miss X and the Care Provider agreed it would be better for Miss Y to move to an alternative placement. Miss X said she wanted the Care Provider to provide her with a financial remedy which would cover costs associated with moving.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council and its Care Provider. The Care provider found no evidence to support the allegation that staff knew about ongoing noise problems before Miss Y moved into her flat. Miss X did not provide independent evidence that contradicted those findings. We are unlikely to be able to obtain additional evidence beyond what has already been considered. Subsequently, a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
10. In addition, the Care Provider investigated the noise concerns, explored options to minimise the impact of the noise and agreed to review its placement assessment process to improve consideration of resident compatibility. This indicates it took appropriate steps to respond to the concerns raised.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault and a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman