Summary: We will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about how Buckinghamshire Council dealt with a safeguarding enquiry about her brother, Mr B’s, supported living accommodation. This is because it is unlikely an investigation could achieve the outcome Ms A wants.

The complaint

1. Ms A complains on behalf of her brother, Mr B. She complains about the standard of a safeguarding investigation by Buckinghamshire Council (the Council), into Mr B’s supported living accommodation. Ms A said there was a lack of support from staff at the placement, that her brother did not have cooking equipment to prepare food safely, and that he was living in dirty and unsafe conditions. She said the safeguarding investigation failed to improve the situation for Mr B, and he was left malnourished, dirty and dishevelled. Ms A also said Mr B’s mental health deteriorated during this time.
2. As a result of her complaint, Ms A wants the Council to accept the safeguarding response was not sufficient and did not help Mr B. She also wants Mr B to be placed in catered accommodation where his needs can be fully met.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the Ms A and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. Ms A had an opportunity to comment on a draft version of the decision. I have carefully considered her comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr B lived in supported living accommodation in Buckinghamshire. His placement was funded by another council and an NHS organisation.
7. Ms A became concerned about the standard of care and support being provided to Mr B at the accommodation, and raised a safeguarding alert with the Council. The Council carried out a safeguarding enquiry, visiting Mr B’s placement on two occasions. However, although the Council visited the communal areas of the placement, it said staff were unable to go into to Mr B’s room, or speak to Mr B directly.
8. In response to Ms A’s complaint, the Council acknowledged that to thoroughly investigate the safeguarding issues, it was important to have engagement and involvement from Mr B. The Council said it should have carried out further visits to build rapport with Mr B and involve him in the safeguarding process. The Council apologised to Ms A about this, and fed back learning from the complaint to staff, that further visits would have been best practice.
9. Therefore, the Council acknowledged it could have done more to pursue the safeguarding enquiry. However, it said the concerns raised by Ms A highlighted the need for “a robust social care review to assess if the current accommodation is suitably meeting [Mr B’s] care and support needs”. The Council contacted the organisations that funded Mr B’s package of care and provided mental health support, to request a review of his care. Mr B is no longer at the placement, and I understand the review of his care needs and suitability of accommodation is planned by the funding organisations. Were we to investigate the complaint about how the Council handled the safeguarding enquiry, it is unlikely we could achieve the outcome Ms A seeks (a new placement for Mr B), particularly as the Council does not fund or manage Mr B’s care package.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms A’s complaint because it is unlikely an investigation could achieve the outcome Ms A wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman