Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to safeguard Ms X’s son, Mr Y, when he was involved with a shared lives placement. This is because further investigation would be unlikely to result in a different outcome for Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that when her son Mr Y was being cared for during a shared lives placement, the Council failed to carry out risk assessments and ensure that Mr Y was appropriately supervised by his host family.
2. She said Mr Y has been negatively affected by the Council’s actions and this matter has caused her stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 could not add to any previous investigation by the organization,
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

If you are adding this, you really should have some analysis as to why. I would just delete if you are not going to mention why we cannot achieve REP's outcomes

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council runs a scheme called Shared Lives which allows people with additional needs to live with their carers. Whilst Ms X’s sonWhile Mr Y was living with a carer as part of the scheme, an incident occurred which resulted in Mr Y being placed on the sex offenders register and under a supervision order.
7. Ms X complained to the Council because she felt it should have put monitoring in place which could have prevented the incident from happening.
8. The Council investigated records and statements taken at the time of the incident and found no record of inappropriate behaviour on the carer’s part. The Council said it could have put closer monitoring in placeplace, but this would have been unlikely to prevent what happened.

I think you should also add that there was no previous information to indicate Mr Y would be a risk to children and that he was not under a DoLs and so could not have been supervised 24/7. This is just to drive home the fact we are unlikely to find any fault by the Council.

9. Ms X is unhappy with the Council’s response and wants it to put procedures in place to ensure something like this does not happen again. The Council has conducted a thorough investigation based on information held at the time and did not find fault indicating that the incident could have been prevented. The Ombudsman would be unlikely to arrive at a different conclusion based on the evidence seen so far.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because further investigation would be unlikely to result in a different outcome for Ms X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman