Council failed to take “sufficient action” to safeguard woman in supported living accommodation after aggressive behaviour from another resident, Ombudsman finds

In light of the Ombudsman’s findings, the council has agreed to review how it can strengthen its response in circumstances where one of its users of care services “experiences distress as a result of the actions of another”.

The woman behind the complaint, Miss D, complained on behalf of her sister, Ms E, an adult with learning disabilities.

Ms E lives in supported housing, with care and support from a registered care provider.

Miss D complained the council and care provider failed to “adequately safeguard and support” Ms E. This was after Ms E repeatedly became distressed because of the actions of Ms F, another resident in the supported housing scheme.

Miss D said as a result, Ms E experienced “unnecessary prolonged distress”.

Miss D said she also experienced distress, both because of her sister’s experience and because of frustration with the council and care provider, after she “repeatedly” asked both to intervene, said the Ombudsman.

The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 set out the fundamental standards that registered care providers must achieve.

Analysing the evidence in the present case, the Ombudsman said: “Not having measures in place to safeguard Ms E from Ms F’s behaviours and / or not reviewing the effectiveness of those measures [has] led me to question if the care provider met the relevant fundamental standards (Regulations 12 and 13).

“[…] Both the council and the care provider also had an opportunity to try and intervene effectively with Ms F after Miss D complained in September 2024. But they did not do so and instead became defensive in response to her understandable concern for her sister.”

The Ombudsman found the council and care provider also sought to “underplay” the incidents in three ways:

• “By implying any disruptive behaviour would soon pass.
• By suggesting the behaviour was neither that serious nor significant.
• By suggesting the behaviour disproportionately affected Ms E because of her perceived sensitivity.”

The report concluded: “Ms E suffered prolonged distress from Ms F’s actions. Neither the council nor care provider were responsible directly for that behaviour. But both failed to act sooner to address it, failed to review the effectiveness of measures belatedly taken to do so and failed to consider further action including ending Ms F’s licence agreement. But for these failures I considered on balance the distress Ms E experienced from Ms F’s behaviour would have been less, either in its frequency, severity, duration or all three. The faults caused injustice to Ms E, therefore.”

To remedy the injustice caused, the Ombudsman recommended the council:

• apologise separately to Miss D and Ms E, accepting the findings of the investigation,
• make a symbolic payment to Ms E of £1,000,
• make a symbolic payment to Miss D of £500,
• review how it can strengthen its response in circumstances where one of its users of care services, experiences distress as a result of the actions of another.

According to the Ombudsman, the council agreed that the review would consider:

• if the council used its powers to safeguard adults from abuse sufficiently in such cases;
• whether it sufficiently considered such cases through the perspective of the victim of any disruptive or aggressive behaviour;
• whether it could do more to encourage social workers to draw up actions plans to tackle problem behaviour and monitor their effectiveness;
• where applicable, if it should use its power to end licence agreements in cases where a user of services in supported living accommodation it provides, breaches a ‘good behaviour’ clause in its licence.

A spokesperson for Leeds City Council said: “The council has fully accepted the recommendations of the Ombudsman and is carrying out the review. Once complete, we will inform the Ombudsman of the outcome and they will confirm if we have satisfied the requirements.”

Lottie Winson