Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to act on a safeguarding concern he raised about patio doors at a retirement village. Mr X also complained about the time the Council took to investigate his concerns and respond to his complaint. Mr X says the patio doors remain unsafe and the delays caused unnecessary distress and frustration. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the actions of the Council in response to Mr X’s safeguarding concerns. There was fault through delays in handling Mr X’s complaint. The Council has already apologised for these delays.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to act on a safeguarding concern raised about patio doors at a retirement village. Mr X says the patio doors remain unsafe for residents at the retirement village.
2. Mr X also complained about the time the Council took to investigate his concerns and respond to his complaint. Mr X says the delays caused unnecessary distress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered all the information Mr X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
6. The Council accepted my draft decision and Mr X did not provide comment. I have therefore reached my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Local Government Ombudsman Jurisdiction

7. The Local Government Ombudsman investigates complaints about the provision of care and about Council safeguarding investigations.
8. Care Providers who house Council assessed residents must be a Registered Provider with the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) [Now Homes England and Regulator of Social Housing] and must comply with all housing standards.

Safeguarding vulnerable adults

9. Councils play the lead role in co-ordinating work to safeguard adults. Anyone who has concerns for the welfare of a vulnerable adult should raise an alert.
10. The purpose of the safeguarding process is to:
• Find out the facts about what happened; and
• protect the vulnerable adult from the risk of further harm.
11. When someone raises a concern with the Council, it should undertake an initial enquiry to decide how to respond. The Council can decide what, if any, action it should take.
12. The Council’s safeguarding policy says that if it does not have concerns under safeguarding it can pass the matter over to one of its commissioners to address service quality concerns.
13. It is not for the Ombudsman to reinvestigate the safeguarding referral but to consider whether the Council conducted a suitable investigation in line with its safeguarding procedures.

Council Corporate Complaints process

14. The Council used its corporate complaints procedure when handling Mr X’s complaint.
15. When a person complains to the Council it will assess the complaint at Stage 1 to see if it can provide an informal response within five working days. If the Council cannot provide an informal response it will acknowledge the complaint within seven working days and provide a full response within twenty working days.
16. Should a person request a response at Stage 2, the Council’s Consumer Relations Officer will investigate the complaint. Again, the Council should acknowledge the complaint within seven working days and provide a full response within twenty-five working days.

Background

17. Mr X was the secretary of a Residents Association Committee (the Committee) at a private retirement village. In 2016, three residents at the retirement village, whom I will refer to as Ms A, Ms B and Ms C, experienced incidents with the patio doors in their apartments. Mr X first complained to the retirement village about the safety of the patio doors.

What Happened

18. Mr X got an Architect to inspect the patio doors at the retirement village in September 2018. The Architect’s report stated the patio doors failed to meet the mandatory requirements of the National House Building Council (NHBC), an independent standard setting body. The Architect said this meant the doors were defective and unsuitable.
19. Mr X wrote to the Council on 28 November 2018 asking it to investigate the patio doors at the retirement village. The Council responded to Mr X saying the retirement village was a private organisation and was not the responsibility of the Council.
20. In March 2019, Mr X contacted the Council again to raise a safeguarding concern as some residents at the retirement village receive care and support packages from the Council. Mr X complained to his MP who contacted the Council.
21. The Council did not consider this matter a safeguarding matter and arranged for the Quality Assurance Manager to attend the retirement village in May 2019. The lead commissioner reviewed the potential risk of the patio doors to individuals. The Council’s review said:
• It focused on the risk to individuals and was not a technical review of the doors.
• It did not interview Ms A, Ms B and Ms C as none were available on the date of the visit.
• The lead commissioner considered the relevant building regulations and information provided by the Committee.
• The retirement village referenced the doors in its inductions and handbooks and the risk was managed by the retirement village.
22. The Council wrote to Mr X’s MP on 20 May 2019 advising it would be taking no further action.
23. Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council on 13 June 2019. Mr X complained that:
• The Council did not interview the Committee, Ms A, Ms B or Ms C as part of the Council’s investigation.
• The Council only considered information provided by the retirement village and ignored information provided by the Committee.
• The Council’s determination was biased and unsafe.
• The Council took five months to investigate the safety concerns raised and only after Mr X contacted his MP.
24. On 9 July 2019, the Council confirmed it would provide a Stage 1 response to Mr X’s complaint.
25. The Council sent its Stage 1 response to Mr X on 5 September 2019. The Council said its responsibility was for the individual safety of people and not the safety of the building itself. The building, fixtures and fittings are the sole responsibility of the owner of the retirement village. The Council had visited the retirement village in May 2019 and completed an assessment and determined no risk. The main care provider for residents receiving care and support through the Council also did not identify the patio doors as an individual risk to residents.
26. Mr X disputed the Stage 1 response and asked to move to Stage 2 on 23 October 2019.
27. The Council commissioned an independent investigating officer to complete a Stage 2 investigation on 18 December 2019. The investigating officer arranged interviews with the Quality Assurance Development Manager, the lead commissioner and a commissioning officer for 26 January 2020. This meeting took place.
28. The investigating officer also arranged a meeting with Mr X for 29 January 2020, but Mr X could not attend this meeting. The investigating officer rearranged this meeting for 6 March 2020. The investigating officer also interviewed Ms A, Ms B and Ms C on 6 March 2020 and Mr X gave him the architects report.
29. The investigating officer completed his report on 17 June 2020. The report said:
• The retirement village is a private housing provider and the contracts for residents are private agreements with the housing provider. It is not the responsibility of the Council to dictate the quality of the door fittings.
• The Council has a responsibility to safeguarding vulnerable adults from harm and abuse. However, the property in question was a retirement village and not a care home. Simply because a person reached a certain age does not make them vulnerable.
• The Council provides support and care packages to some residents at the retirement village. But the Council did not provide a care package to Ms A, Ms B or Ms C.
• Any resident at the retirement village receiving Council support or a care package are subject to ongoing risk assessments. The Council care provider does not consider the patio doors an ongoing risk. The Council would assess any individual for suitability to live at the retirement village.
• There have only been three incidents involving patio doors, all from 2016. Therefore, the investigating officer could not confirm an ongoing risk. The Committee also provided stickers for patio doors which advise of potential risk.
• The retirement village provided certification showing the doors complied with relevant British Standards set by the NHBC. Consideration was given to moving the hinges, but the doorframes could not accommodate inward opening doors. While the Architect has a difference in professional opinion the investigating officer could not comment on this.
• Mr X had completed the retirement village’s complaints process about the patio doors. It is not for the Council to continue this complaints process. The complaint about the patio doors is not upheld.
• The Council confused the complaints process, did not complete anything in a timely manner. Mr X first brought his complaint to the Council in November 2018, but it did not log a Stage 1 complaint until June 2019 and the independent investigation not completed until June 2020.
• The independent investigator recommended the Council apologises for the delay.
30. The Council provided its Stage 2 Response to Mr X with the independent investigators report on 9 July 2020. The Council apologised for the delay in handling Mr X’s complaint. The Council confirmed it agreed with the investigating officers report finding no fault with its actions about the safety of the patio doors.

Analysis

31. The Council has a responsibility to safeguard vulnerable adults. The Council also must complete risk assessments for any person receiving a support or care package from the Council.
32. The Council does not have a responsibility to dictate the structural terms of a building to a private residential retirement village.

Safeguarding

33. When a person raises a safeguarding concern with the Council it should undertake an initial enquiry to decide what action to take.
34. The Council registered Mr X’s concerns as a safeguarding enquiry. On enquiry, the Council decided this was not a safeguarding matter. The Council decided this because the retirement village is a private company and not commissioned by the Council. This meant Mr X’s concerns about the structure of the building was not something the Council should investigate. The Council was entitled to make this decision in line with its safeguarding policy.
35. As the Council did not consider Mr X’s concern a safeguarding issue, it passed the matter over to the lead commissioner for quality assurance to investigate. The Council acted in line with its policy by referring Mr X’s concern to the relevant department to investigate. I do not find fault with the way the Council considered Mr X’s safeguarding complaint.

Risk Assessments

36. The Council has a responsibility to assess risk to a person receiving a support or care package from the Council.
37. The Council’s care provider does not consider the patio doors a risk to residents at the retirement village receiving Council support or care packages. The Council noted that should it consider the patio doors a risk to a person as part of a risk assessment it would consider their suitability to live at the retirement village. I consider this addresses any risk posed by the patio doors and do not find fault with the Council’s decision.

Ongoing Risk

38. The Council’s lead commissioner for quality assurance completed an investigation into Mr X’s concerns before the Council considered Mr X’s complaint through its corporate complaints procedure.
39. The Council’s investigations found the retirement village and the Committee had both acted to mitigate any risk of the doors through advanced warnings and signage. The independent investigator also noted no records of incidents involving the patio doors since 2016 within the report produced in June 2020.
40. The Council’s investigations also found the door hinges adhered to British Standards set by the NHBC, shown by certification. The professional opinion of Mr X’s Architect differed and considered the hinges did not meet these standards. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to question a difference in professional opinion.
41. The Council decided the lack of incidents for four years, improved warning about the doors and evidence the hinges met British Standards was demonstrative of no ongoing risk. The Council took all the correct steps, and I do not find fault in how the Council made its decision. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to say whether the doors are safe or not but to consider how the Council went about assessing the risk.

Complaint Delays

42. The Independent Investigator decided the Council delayed in handling Mr X’s complaint. The Council apologised to Mr X for the delay. The Council has also updated its processes to improve complaint handling.
43. I agree with the findings of the independent investigator and find the delay by the Council was fault. The Council has already addressed this fault through the apology provided.
44. I found no fault in the substantive issue in this complaint and have required no action of the Council. Therefore, I do not consider the delay by the Council has caused a significant personal injustice to Mr X, Ms A, Ms B or Ms C.

Back to top

Final decision

45. I have completed my investigation as there was no fault in the Council’s decision and no injustice to Mr X outside of the delays in handling the complaint for which the Council has already apologised.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman