Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to ensure the complainant’s father received the correct care. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council’s decision-makers reached their decision.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained that the Council failed to ensure his father, Mr C, received the correct care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response to his complaint.
5. Mr B has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr B told us Mr C’s doctor examined his father following a fire in his house. The doctor then recommended a respite care placement for Mr C’s own protection. Mr B raised concerns about his father’s situation. So a council social worker, officer Z, then visited Mr C to complete an assessment. Mr B told us he was present at the assessment. He said it was initially agreed Mr C should be admitted to a care home as soon as possible. But Mr B said officer Z’s duty manager, officer Y, then overruled this. Officer Y’s proposal was for Mr C to remain in his own home. Mr B told us this was proposed without consulting Mr C’s family or the family doctor. He said his father was suffering from dementia which was at an advanced stage.
7. Mr B has criticised the Council’s response to his complaint. Mr B said the author of the complaint response was officer Y, the duty manager responsible for the decisions made about Mr C remaining at home.
8. Mr B told us he feels this father’s life was endangered and he suffered unduly as a result of the decisions made by the Council. He said he needs an explanation as to why Mr C was treated this way.
9. Officer Y responded to Mr B’s complaint in July 2021. Officer Y said Mr C had, by then, moved into a care home on a self-funded basis. Officer Y said officer Z had considered the concerns raised about the risks to Mr C, but concluded his needs could be met in his own home with an increased care package. Officer Y explained residential care is often a last resort when other options have already been tried. Officer Y said it was Officer Z’s view Mr C lacked capacity to make the decision himself on whether to move to a care home. But he had said he did not want to move to a care home.
10. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (the Act) sets out the principles for making decisions for adults who lack mental capacity. A key principle of the Act is that any act done for, or any decision made for a person who lacks capacity must be in that person’s best interests. The decision-makers must consider if they can effectively achieve what is needed in a way that is less restrictive of the person’s rights and freedom of action. They must consider the person’s wishes and feelings, as far as they can as well as the information family members had provided about their concerns.
11. My role is to decide if the Council considered all relevant information and powers available to it when deciding how to meet Mr C’s needs. It is not to decide whether Mr C needed a placement in a care home. It was for the social workers to apply the principles in the Act and make a professional judgement, on balance, after considering all the relevant information. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council’s decision-makers reached their decision.
12. There is only one stage in councils’ adult social care complaint procedures. Once that stage is completed, complainants can complain to us. But we would not investigate a complaint about the way a council has dealt with a complaint if we are not investigating the issue which led to it.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council’s decision-makers reached their decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman