Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about bullying in supported living accommodation because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complained the Council has failed to stop the bullying she has experienced in her supported living accommodation.
2. Miss Y says she has been upset at the lack of action, disrespected and judged.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Miss Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Section 42 of the Care Act requires that each local authority must make enquiries, or cause others to do so, if it believes an adult is experiencing, or is at risk of, abuse or neglect. An enquiry should establish whether any action needs to be taken to prevent or stop abuse or neglect and if so, by who. Its duty continues until it decides what action is necessary to protect the adult and by whom and ensures itself that this action has been taken.
7. The scope of the Council’s enquiry, who leads it and its nature, and how long it takes, will depend on the circumstances. It will usually start with asking the adult their view.
8. The Council received safeguarding concerns relating to Miss Y. It opened a Section 42 enquiry and consulted with other bodies including Miss Y’s supported living accommodation manager and Miss Y’s advocate. It tried repeatedly to speak to Miss Y, both on her own phone and that of her boyfriend to arrange opportunities to speak to her about her concerns and to try to establish her aims from the safeguarding enquiries.
9. Despite numerous attempts to do so, the Council was unable to speak to Miss Y. Miss Y was asked to attend a strategy meeting to discuss the issues. The Council agreed to rearrange this meeting so Miss Y could attend with her advocate. However, despite its attempts to do this, Miss Y did not engage with the Council over a period of two months to arrange the meeting. After consultation with the advocate, the Council decided to close the enquiry with the allegations being unsubstantiated.
10. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council investigated the matter. It took steps to try to engage with Miss Y and obtain information from her and from other relevant sources. As it was unable to substantiate the allegations made, it used the information available to it to reach its conclusion that the allegations could not be substantiated and close the safeguarding enquiry. As there is a lack of fault in the decision-making process the Council followed, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman