Summary: Mr X complained about the suitability of his brother’s care placement and care. We found there was no fault in the way the Council considered the concerns raised by Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that his brother is not receiving appropriate care and support at a shared lives placement arranged by the Council. He complained that he may not be receiving appropriate food and drinks, he has no mental stimulation, some of his possessions were removed from him and he is not encouraged to socialise. He also complained his brother was assaulted by another shared lives resident and this was not reported or dealt with properly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I spoke to Mr X and considered the information he provided. I asked the Council for information and considered its response to the complaint.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. Mr X’s brother (referred to in this statement as Y), has Downs Syndrome and a learning disability. He has lived in a shared lives placement, organised by the Council, since late 2016.
7. Y can make some of his own day-to-day decisions but does not have capacity to make complex decisions. The Council obtained power of attorney to act on Y’s behalf and acts as an appointee for managing Y’s financial affairs. More complicated decisions are made by the Council, as it holds Power of Attorney. These decisions are made after a capacity test in Y’s best interests.
8. The Council took a best interests decision in 2016 that Y’s shared lives placement was in his best interests.
9. Y’s care plan sets out his care needs. This includes what help he needs on a day‑to-day basis, support he needs with food and eating and what Y’s social needs and hobbies are.

Mr X’s complaint

10. Mr X made a complaint to the Council after visiting Y a number of times over eight weeks in 2020.
11. We investigated Mr X’s complaint and we were able to see Y’s care plan, updates to the care plan and documents which show that the issues Mr X raised were considered by the London Borough of Newham, as they are responsible for Y’s placement.
12. Because Y told Mr X that he had been assaulted and as the concerns were about Y’s welfare, the concerns were also considered as safeguarding issues.
13. Y’s placement is in a different London borough. So, the safeguarding investigation was carried out by the borough council where Y lives. Our investigation here only concerns the suitability of Y’s placement and how The London Borough of Newham acted in response to Mr X’s complaint.

What we found

14. Mr X’s concerns were about whether Y’s needs were being properly met in the placement. The issues included:
• Concern about whether Mr X was receiving sufficient food and drink. Mr X noted water in Y’s room did not appear touched between his visits and Y appeared to be very hungry. Also, Y’s carers did not monitor him while he was eating.
• Whether Y had sufficient mental stimulation. Mr X noted a pile of newspapers in Y’s room which he flicked through.
• Whether Y had sufficient opportunities to socialise outside his home and why some of his possessions seemed to have been removed.
• Concern about Y being assaulted by another shared lives resident which was not reported or dealt with properly by his carers.
15. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council carried out an unannounced visit to Y’s placement and took part in safeguarding meetings to discuss the issues and whether harm had come to Y. It wrote to Mr X to explain the outcome. There was no undue delay in these actions.
16. The Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint stated Y has dysphasia. This can increase the risk of choking. Y’s carer acknowledged and agreed to ensure someone was always present while Y was eating. The Council stated his carers had received some additional guidance on the foods Y could eat and further training would be provided about supporting Y’s food and fluid intake. It stated a referral would also be made to a dietitian.
17. The Council considered Y’s habit of looking through newspapers. They agreed the pile of papers could be kept at a manageable level and new papers would be provided periodically. The Council also stated Y would be reminded to use his headphones when using his tablet or keyboard.
18. The Council explained that the outcome of the safeguarding alert would be sent to Mr X by the other London borough involved.

Was there fault by the Council

19. It was appropriate for us to investigate Mr X’s concerns, and as an independent organisation, we have been able to see documents showing Y’s needs and how the Council considered Mr X’s concerns. However, we cannot disclose information about Y and his care needs to Mr X. This is because it is Y’s personal information. However, we can confirm our findings, having seen more detailed information than that shared with Mr X.
20. I am satisfied that the Council did act on and appropriately consider the issues Mr X raised.
21. There is evidence that officers from the London Borough of Newham and Y’s carers took part and provided information to inform the safeguarding enquiries.
22. The response that the London Borough of Newham sent to Mr X did not refer specifically to the issue of the assault. However, this was an issue that was considered as part of the safeguarding investigation. The reported assault and Y’s relationship with another service user was discussed by officers from both councils as part of the safeguarding investigation in some detail. The outcome concerning this will have been shared with Mr X separately.
23. Although the Council’s response to Mr X did not explain it’s view on the removal of some of Y’s possessions, these were also issues that the Council addressed with the carers and they formed part of the consideration of safeguarding issues.
24. The Council focused on the issue of newspapers in Mr X’s room in its response to Mr X rather than a wider concern about socialising. It could have addressed the concern Mr X raised about Y not leaving the home more directly. However, I have seen evidence that activities outside the home are considered as part of Y’s care plan. The Council confirmed that Y’s care and support will be reviewed and monitored by the Learning Disabilities Team.
25. I found there is evidence the Council acted on and considered Mr X’s concerns and cooperated appropriately with the safeguarding investigation which also considered the issues Mr X raised. The Council could have addressed the issue of socialising more fully in its response to Mr X. However, this is an issue covered in Y’s care plan.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I found no fault in the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman