The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to take action regarding the poor state of his neighbour, Ms Y’s, property due to hoarding and self neglect. He says this causes risk to his property and tenants. We found no evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained that the Council has not done enough to protect his property and tenants from the impact of Mrs Y’s behaviours.
Mr X says Mrs Y is a neighbour who hoards in and around her property and has “signficant self-neglect issues”. This creates risk to Mr X’s property and his tenants. Mr X believes the Council should carry out mental health and social care assessments. He says if it finds Mrs Y is not fit to live by herself, it should move her to a care home. If she can safely live by herself, he says the Council should provide regular support to help her with her hoarding issues. It should also consider the fire and rodent risks.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from the Complainant and from the Council.
I sent both parties a copy of my draft decision for comment and took account of the comments I received in response.
Background
Mental Capacity Act The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is the framework for acting and deciding for people who lack the mental capacity to make particular decisions for themselves. The Act (and the Code of Practice 2007) describes the steps a person should take when dealing with someone who may lack capacity to make decisions for themselves. It describes when to assess a person’s capacity to make a decision, how to do this, and how to make a decision on behalf of somebody who cannot do so.
Mental capacity assessment A person aged 16 or over must be presumed to have capacity to make a decision unless it is established they lack capacity. A person should not be treated as unable to make a decision: because they make an unwise decision; based simply on: their age; their appearance; assumptions about their condition, or any aspect of their behaviour; or before all practicable steps to help the person to do so have been taken without success.
The Code of Practice to the 2005 Act says “Anyone assessing someone’s capacity to make a decision for themselves should use the two-stage test of capacity.
Does the person have an impairment of the mind or brain, or is there some sort of disturbance affecting the way their mind or brain works? (It doesn’t matter whether the impairment or disturbance is temporary of permanent.)
If so, does that impairment or disturbance mean that the person is unable to make the decision in question at the time it needs to be made?”
What happened Mr X says the Council previously cleared a lot of rubbish from Ms Y’s property following a visit from the fire service.
Mr X complained to the Council’s adult social care department in February 2021, asking that it assess Mrs Y’s care needs and mental health. He said he first raised the issue in June 2020 and again in November 2020; he had not received any response to the November contact. He said Ms Y’s behaviours continued and the property was once again a risk to his children, his property and himself. He later chased the Council for a response and it replied on 19 March. It said the Council had tried to visit Ms Y but had not been successful. It said: “We have made a number of attempts to visit and as adult social care have no enforcement powers I’m not able to agree that we have not taken any action in relation to your concerns.”. It said it had also tried to work with Crime Enforcement and Regulation (CER) to resolve the issues but they were not currently undertaking visits. It suggested Mr X raise any complaints about CER’s input directly. Mr X was unhappy with this response.
The Council wrote to Mr X again on 29 April apologising for the slight delay. It said it could not discuss any details of its involvement with Ms Y, with Mr X. It said it could not accept a complaint from him about the Council’s actions with a third party. It had referred Mr X’s concerns to the Council’s Crime, Enforcement and Regulations Team, for them to look into any Statutory Nuisance issues.
Mr X remained unhappy with the Council’s response. He said he wanted to know if someone from the Council had visited Ms Y to assess the situation. He said the Council had not fulfilled its duty of care and asked how fines were going to help someone who has welfare and mental health issues. He said he would escalate his complaint to the third stage; an independent adjudicator.
The independent adjudicator responded to Mr X and did not uphold his complaint. They said they had checked the actions of both environmental health and adult social care and was satisfied the Council had liaised appropriately with other agencies. They had seen evidence that the Council was proceeding sensitively and with caution and did not feel it could have responded more speedily. The adjudicator recognised the difficulty that Mr X had because the Council could not share information with him. They offered to check progress in a couple of months if he felt there had been none.
The Council cannot force a person to agree to a care needs assessment and may not assess a person’s mental capacity except under certain criteria (see paragraph 9). While it is understandable that Mr X is distressed by his neighbour’s actions, I am satisfied the Council has dealt appropriately with his concerns to date and continues its efforts. I am unable to share details of the Council’s interactions with Ms Y for reasons of confidentiality.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation and found no fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman