Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council’s safeguarding enquiries. We do not consider there is enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating her complaint. Also, we will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council and Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust’s joint discharge of her father from hospital.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the outcome of two safeguarding enquiries by Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (the Council). She also says the Council did not properly involve her or share information with her during those enquiries.
2. Mrs X also complains the Council and Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust’s Intermediate Care Service (ICS) did not consider her father’s (Mr X) wish to return to his home when it discharged him from hospital. The ICS also reversed its decision to discharge Mr X to her house, and instead moved him to stay with his son.
3. Mrs X says events have caused her significant distress and have adversely impacted her physical health. She would like the organisations to make improvements to the local safeguarding and discharge policies.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

4. The Ombudsmen provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. They may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if they believe it is unlikely they would find fault, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(2) and Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the organisations.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
7. Mrs X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have considered her comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. Mrs X does not hold Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) for Mr X. Rather, her brothers do. An LPA is a legal document which allows people to choose one person (or several) to make decisions about their health and welfare and/or their finances and property, for when they become unable to do so for themselves.
9. In December 2022, the Council carried out its first safeguarding enquiry following Mrs X’s concerns about Mr X’s trip to Pakistan.
10. In January 2023, the Trust admitted Mr X to hospital. His health had worsened following his trip to Pakistan.
11. In February 2023, the Council carried out a second safeguarding enquiry following Mrs X’s concerns about Mr X’s health.
12. In March 2023, the Trust and Council’s joint Intermediate Care Service (the ICS) said Mr X could not decide where to stay following his hospital admission. So it was in his best interests to stay with his son (also LPA for health and welfare) while he recovered.

Safeguarding

13. Firstly, I recognise the family dynamic made the Council’s decision making more difficult. One side was always going to be unhappy with the Council’s decision.
14. I have reviewed the Council’s safeguarding records. I am unlikely to find the Council made its decisions with fault. It considered the views of the whole family and balanced those with relevant evidence before deciding if Mr X suffered abuse or neglect. Those decisions were in line with the local safeguarding policy and national guidance.
15. Mrs X says the Council should have shared details about Mr X’s wellbeing during the safeguarding enquiries. The Council suggested Mrs X try to resolve the breakdown in communication between herself and her brothers. I am also unlikely to agree the Council’s response to Mrs X was fault. Open communication between the family would likely have resolved the concerns about Mr X.

Hospital discharge

16. I am unlikely to find fault in the way the ICS made its decision to discharge Mr X to stay with his son. There were no concerns about the suitability of Mr X’s son to act as his LPA. Even if I found fault with the way the ICS assessed Mr X’s ability to make decisions, I would most likely not be able to say Mr X would have returned to the family home or to Mrs X instead.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints about the Council’s safeguarding investigations and the ICS’s discharge of her father. We are unlikely to find the Council and ICS acted with fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman