Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council arranged access for Mr B to remove his personal belongings from his former home when his tenancy ended. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the bed in his care home and having access to his mobile phone. We cannot add to the previous investigation by the Council. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the way the Council dealt with him having access to his former home to remove his personal belongings when his tenancy ended in 2024. Mr B says the bed in his care home is not suited to his needs as it does not elevate so he can raise his feet. He says the restrictions in place in the care home means he cannot have a mobile phone. Mr B says the events have caused him distress and he wants to be compensated for the property he could not collect.

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:

• 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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because we cannot add to the previous investigation the Council completed. When the Council responded to Mr B’s complaint it told him it had arranged for he and his advocate to access his former home to remove his personal belongings. It said Mr B was under no time pressure and the case notes recorded he was aware any items he did not take or want would be disposed of. It did not consider Mr B’s complaint about what happened regarding a previous tenancy in 2020 because his complaint was late.
6. The Council found it had previously considered concerns about his bed in line with its safeguarding procedures. During its complaint investigation it accepted it had delayed allocating an officer to deal with Mr B’s case and completing an annual review of his care needs in the care home. It allocated an officer in
   April 2025 and arranged a review of his care needs which would consider and said Mr B could raise any issues about his care. The Council apologised to Mr B and paid him £300 to acknowledge any distress caused by its delay.
7. The Council told Mr B the restrictions in place at the home was because of a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisation in place. It said it had arranged to review the DoLS and he would have an opportunity to contribute to the review. We could not add to the previous investigation completed by the Council. Any injustice caused to Mr B was remedied when the Council investigated his complaint. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because we could not add to the Council’s previous investigation. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman