Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that supported living staff did not respond to an emergency alarm. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about his deceased mother’s supported living. He said his mother, Mrs Y, was left unattended in her property, after she pressed an emergency alarm for assistance. He said they found Mrs Y on the floor of her property the following day.
2. Mr X has questioned the outcome of the Council’s investigation. He said the incident had caused concerns around the quality of the supported living care. He wants a thorough investigation to prevent further incidents occurring.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council completed a safeguarding enquiry into Mr X’s concern that supported living staff did not respond to Mrs Y’s emergency alarm. It found that Mrs Y had activated the alarm and was spoken too by a staff member. They had recorded Mrs Y as saying she was fine. The staff member took no further action. The Council was satisfied that the staff member had followed the correct process. It did not uphold Mr X’s concerns about the supported living provider.
7. Although Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s response, we will not investigate. I have considered Mr X’s representations and the Council’s response. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its conclusions to justify our involvement. Additionally, the Council confirmed that staff would ask customers to confirm they were “safe and well” in response to alarms potentially activated by accident. Therefore, I am satisfied the Council has improved practices following this complaint.
8. Mr X also complained the Council delayed in responding to his complaint. The Council has apologised for the delay and offered Mr X a financial remedy for the distress caused by delays in its complaint handling. That is in line with our guidance of remedies. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman