Summary: There was no fault the Council decided to carry on using a property near to Mrs X’s home as a supported living facility. It acknowledged Mrs X’s complaints, worked with other stakeholders to try and resolve them, and checked on the management of the facility when Mrs X raised her concerns.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council have not done enough to address the anti-social behaviour (ASB) caused by residents at a supported living accommodation near her home, including ensuring proper management of the accommodation.
2. Mrs X said the impact on her, and her family’s wellbeing has been significant. She also said it has been continually disruptive and has impacted on her enjoyment of her home.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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)
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated the actions of the Council and its relationship with the care provider between 1 February and 30 May 2023, at the point Mrs X made her complaint to us.
7. Mrs X’s lives in a two-tier Council area. The district council (Authority A) is the lead agency for ASB. I have not investigated the Council’s ASB specific response.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I spoke to Mrs X and considered the information she provided.
9. I considered the Council’s comments and the documents it provided.
10. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Principles of good administrative practice.

11. In 2018, we published guidance for Councils dealing with complaints. In that guidance we emphasised (among other things) the following;
• providing a response to its decisions;
• being service user focused by responding flexibly;
• trying to put things right quickly and effectively.

What happened

Company A (the care provider)

12. The Council commissions Company A, to provide supported living accommodation for young people. Company A rents a house (Property G) near to Mrs X’s home to do this and in late January and early February, three young people moved into Property G.
13. Mrs X said in mid-February, she first experienced disruption, including ASB and other nuisance related issues, caused by the residents at Property G. Mrs X said these incidents occurred continuously until early April, until the young people moved out. Company A then moved a lone occupant in to the property, where they remain.

Role of Authority 2

14. Authority 2 is the district council which is responsible for Mrs X’s street. As the lead authority for ASB, in late February, Authority 2 contacted the Council about the neighbourhood complaints relating to Property G and its residents.
15. Around this time, the Council and Authority 2 discussed the complaints, which included a concern that Property G was operating as a ‘house in multiple occupation’. The Council gave Authority 2 initial advice about the licensing issues. It also gave it the name of a senior officer in the Council, who was the person who managed the contracts with Company A.
16. In early March, Mrs X made a complaint to her MP about the Council’s actions.
17. Around this time, two senior Council officers met with the director of Company A, to discuss the incidents, and to review how it was managing Property G and the residents.
18. There is evidence the Council queried staffing ratios and checked the staff logs, relating to an incident that occurred immediately before the meeting.
19. First contract meeting- in mid-March, a Council officer met with representatives of Company A for a contract review meeting. The evidence of the meeting minutes show they discussed recent events reported by Mrs X and others, and Company A’s response to them.
20. The notes say Company A had decided to move the young people out of the property and replace them with a lone occupant, because of the complaints. The officer asked Company A to share the risk assessment it had completed for Property G. The evidence shows Company A sent the Council a completed risk assessment.
21. Site visit- in response to ASB complaints, Authority 2 arranged to visit Property G and invited the Council to accompany it on the visit. Authority 2 also arranged a meeting with relevant stakeholders.
22. In mid-March, a Council officer visited Property G as outlined above. The evidence shows after this visit, the officer was content there was no immediate follow up action required by the Council, in relation to the contractual arrangements. It also agreed it should attend and support any further meetings arranged by Authority 2, in response to the ASB reports and further control of the management of Property G.
23. In late March, the Council met with other stakeholders including Authority 2, elected representatives, and the police. After this meeting, it was agreed by the Council and Authority 2, they would arrange a further meeting, which would include residents.
24. In early April, several residents moved out of Property G, following which Company A moved a lone resident in.
25. In late April, the Council asked Company A to provide it with evidence it had checked with the mortgage holder it was able to use Property G for providing supported living services. I have seen the evidence Company A gave the Council confirming this was not in conflict with mortgage arrangements.
26. In early May, the Council and Company A met for a further contract meeting. The evidence shows it discussed the ongoing complaints and noted both the Council and Company A, were due to go to a resident meeting later that month.
27. In mid-May, Mrs X met with the Council, Company A, and other stakeholders. The meeting minutes reflect it was the Council’s intention to continue using Company A in the way it had, but it would be used as a single occupant facility in future.
28. In late May, Mrs X sent the Council an email after an incident involving the new occupant and parking related issues. The evidence shows the Council replied with a brief explanation about the incident.

My findings

29. When the Council was aware of Mrs X’s complaints, it responded by nominating a point of contact and identified its area of responsibility was through its ‘corporate parent’ function. The evidence shows it recognised there was a need for it to work alongside the various stakeholders to try and resolve the issues and this included an early discussion with Company A.
30. The Council carried out checks to establish the viability of the location, including asking Company A to check it could use the property with the mortgage holder. The evidence shows it considered Company A’s response. I have also read its complaint replies which it sent to Mrs X, and these appear to be a reasonable and thorough response to her complaints.
31. The evidence also shows Company A, who provides services on behalf of the Council, decided to move the initial cohort of young people because of the complaints. I have also seen evidence it attempted to directly resolve complaints with Mrs X, which was an appropriate consideration.
32. The evidence shows the Council were aware of the complaints and took steps to make sure Property G was being managed properly, and following this, decided to carry on using the property for supported living services. It also gave Mrs X’s MP the reasons why it believed Property G was suitable. There is no fault in how it made this decision, and I cannot therefore criticise it.

Back to top

Final decision

33. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman