Summary: We found no fault on Mr Y’s complaint about the Council failing to class a nearby property for residents with disabilities as a residential home. Evidence showed the Council raised neighbours’ concerns about disturbance and behaviour from with the provider.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council failing to:
1. consult neighbours about the conversion and use of a neighbouring property to a home for residents with learning and physical disabilities;
2. act on reports about the unsuitability of the conversion;
3. act on reports about noise disturbance from the property; and
4. act on reports of traffic problems staff and contractors at the property cause.
2. As a result, he is regularly disturbed by noise from the property, has problems on the road with traffic and parking, all of which affects his amenities.

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 ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

Supported living

6. The aim of supported living is to allow people with disabilities and long term conditions to retain their independence and have their own home and private space. Key features of supported living include the provisions of suitable housing, with the requirement they pay their own rent, live relatively independently, and support themselves financially with their everyday costs of living. This might be through benefits, for example. Care is nearby and on-hand if needed due to mental or physical health challenges or support.
7. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) defines it as a scheme providing personal care to people as part of the support they need to live in their own homes. The personal care is provided under a separate contractual arrangement to the person’s housing. The accommodation is often shared but can be a single household. Supported living providers, which do not provide the regulated ‘personal care’, are not required by law to register with the CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008.
8. It is for those who have the ability to independently carry out most everyday tasks necessary to look after themselves, such as washing and dressing, for example. Supported living arrangements are usually very flexible.
9. It often takes the form of an apartment block or cul-de-sac where a community of people in similar situations can live, with appropriate help readily available.

Back to top

Residential care

10. Residential care allows those with relatively high care needs to live permanently in a residential setting where they can be provided with care and support at all times.
11. Deciding whether supported living or residential care is appropriate depends on a person’s assessment of their level of independence.
12. The CQC defined a residential home as a care home where personal care and accommodation are provided together. Both the care they receive, and the premises, are regulated. They can be with, or without, nursing. Residential homes are registered with the CQC and are regularly inspected to ensure they meet required standards.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

13. I have not investigated:

• Complaints a) and b): This is because the Council is not the local planning authority.
• Complaint c): This is because any complaint about whether noise levels from the property amounted to a statutory nuisance is not a decision for this Council to take but one for the district council.

14. I have investigated the Council’s actions to November 2024. This was because this was the date the Council sent Mr Y its stage 2 response to his formal complaint. The law provides a council has to have the opportunity to respond to a complaint before we can consider it. The Council had that opportunity up to November but has not had it after that date.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

15. I considered all the evidence Mr Y provided, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr Y and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

16. Mr Y has lived in his home for more than twenty years. His home is in a cul-de-sac. He became aware of conversion works to a property on his road in November 2023. Works on it continued for about six months. During this time, contractors caused problems for him and neighbours because of their vehicles and the way they parked them. Footpaths were obstructed and driveways blocked, for example.
17. The property was converted to five separate accommodation units. The Council explained it was for those with disabilities in need of supported living. Tenants would rent and live in their own homes within the property with help from support workers.
18. When tenants moved into the property, problems started for Mr Y and his neighbours. They were regularly disturbed by residents’ behaviour and noise. The police attended but took no action. Neighbours were also caused problems by the number of staff parking when working at the property.
19. Before placing residents in the property, the Council assessed each person, along with their support plans, to manage their individual risks and challenges. In addition, the Council noted the property was detached, had double glazing, and was insulated
20. Mr Y believed the Council should have told him and neighbours of plans to convert the property and use it for supported living. Despite Mr Y’s claims, the Council confirmed the property was not a care home. This meant it did not need to register with the CQC, for example. The CQC regulates all health and social care services in England. It ensures the quality and safety of care in care homes, and the care received in their own homes.
21. He met with the organisation which provided the residents with accommodation and personal care (the provider). He later discovered who owned the property (the company). Mr Y believed there was a relationship between the Council and the company. The Council denied his claim and confirmed the only commercial relationship it had with the property was with the provider. It liaised with the provider about the social care needs of those who would live there, including their mobility and accommodation needs. The Council paid for the care of those living at the property under contract.
22. The Council confirmed it made no decisions about the planning use of this property. The provider was aware of neighbours’ concerns about access and parking, as well as nearness of the property to their homes. The provider would monitor the situation, as would the Council. The Council put a note on its own care system advising staff not to park in the cul-de-sac.
23. The Council required the provider to have a complaints procedure. Any failure to comply with its own procedures would be investigated by the Council. Its supported living contract focused on the delivery of support and care, rather than locations. Before moving individuals into the property, the Council carried out a comprehensive needs assessment of them by a social worker. All have specially developed transition plans to address the change in accommodation and how the impact could be reduced and managed.
24. When concerns about disturbance were raised, the Council discussed them with the provider. The Council gave an example of one report from Mr Y which was discussed with the provider and social work team. Following this, the Council gave him feedback.
25. I have seen copies of the Council’s ‘Environmental Sustainability Full Impact Assessment’ for Supported Living Contract Re-Procurement (12 October 2022). I have also seen the ‘Equality and Public Health Full Impact Assessment’ (3 October 2022). These were about the re-procurement of supported living as its purchasing contract was ending in April 2023.

My findings

26. I make the following findings:
1. Mr Y disputed the Council’s assertion the property was not a residential home. On balance, I am satisfied with the Council’s conclusion. This was because the residents of the property were tenants who rent individual units in it. They had their own homes and private space. They supported themselves financially, likely through the payments of benefits. The personal care they received was provided under a separate contractual arrangement to the tenancy agreement they had for their own accommodation. I found no fault on this complaint.
2. I saw evidence of correspondence between the Council and Mr Y’s neighbour about disturbance and residents’ behaviour. This confirmed it raised concerns made with the provider to allow it to carry out an initial investigation. The Council explained it saw a summary from the provider of what happened on a particular day when concerns were raised. This caused the Council to conclude the provider had a good understanding of events. The Council also alerted the neighbour, and Mr Y, to the provider’s own complaints process.
3. I have also seen the provider’s response to the neighbour. The provider apologised for the neighbour having to raise a complaint at all. It explained it carried out an investigation, the outcome of which it shared with the Council.
4. On balance, I am satisfied the Council took steps to bring concerns raised to the attention of the provider. The evidence showed these were considered and acted on by the provider which fed back to the Council and neighbours.
5. I also considered Mr Y’s complaint about the Council failing to act on reports of traffic and parking problems caused by contractors during the six months when the conversion work was done, and with staff.
6. Firstly, the contractors were not employed by the Council. It had no responsibility for their actions. Neighbours were in the same position as anyone else who experiences contractors’ visiting their road to carry out building works. Parking in a way that blocked drives, or parking on a pavement, needed reporting to the police. This information was available on the Council’s website. I found no fault on this complaint.
7. On balance, I am satisfied the Council acted on reports about staff parking in the cul-de-sac by placing a note on its own care system asking staff not to park there.
8. As Mr Y noted, the two impact assessments he received from the Council were dated before the conversion of this property and so were not specific to it and its potential impact. As already noted, the potential impact of the conversion of the property, and the provision of five separate accommodation units for supported living purposes, was primarily one for the planning process to consider. It was for the local planning authority to consider whether the conversion works and intended use needed consent which would have also taken account of its impact on neighbouring amenities.
9. The Council had a property in which those needing supported living could live. It's primary focus was on assessing resident’s needs.

Back to top

Decision

27. I found no fault on Mr Y’s complaint against the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman