Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s actions regarding how it considered her father’s Mr C’s, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS). This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained that the Council should have ensured her father, Mr C, had a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) authorisation in place prior to being discharged from hospital and failing to do so could have had serious implications for her and her family given Mr C’s history of abuse. Ms B says she has not been able to work because of the unacceptable situation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information and documentation Ms B provided. I sent Ms B a copy of my draft decision for comment.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms B complained that she was not informed about Mr C’s DoLS and given the abusive home situation, it should have ensured Mr C had a DoLs in place prior to being discharged from hospital to a care home.
5. The Council explained:

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards ensure people who cannot consent to their care arrangements in a care home or hospital are protected if those arrangements deprive them of their liberty. The legislation is there to safeguard the individual’s rights, rather than to safeguard others from the individual.

6. The Council explained the care home, as managing authority, is responsible for assessing whether a person can consent to a DoLS, which is time and decision specific. So it was appropriate for the care home to undertake a mental capacity and DoLS assessment once Mr C had moved to the home. It assured Ms B while the decision is being made and DoLS request is underway, the individual would be safeguarded from actions and behaviours placing them at risk, such as leaving the building. The Council says it is satisfied appropriate steps would have been taken to safeguard Mr C should he have made attempts to leave the care home, and where a lack of capacity to safeguard himself was suspected or evident. It said on that basis no risk was posed to Ms B.
7. We could not add to this or make a different finding even if we investigated. While Ms B says because Mr C did not have a DoLS authorisation in place she was placed in a risky situation and was fearful of him returning home, as explained the purpose of a DoLS is to safeguard the individual not others. We could not say this is fault.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman