Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (21 014 886)

Category : Adult care services > Assessment and care plan

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 09 Mar 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the issues the complainant raised. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision about her mother’s care and it is not unreasonable to expect the complainant to go to court if she wishes to challenge the Council’s decisions.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, Miss B, complained about the Council’s response to her complaint about its decision it was in her mother’s best interests to remain in a care home and its safeguarding investigation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
  2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
  3. 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, or
  • we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
  1. 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

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
  3. The complainant has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered her comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Miss B has written to the Council about its response to her complaint. She said it was one-sided and there was a lot of missing and incorrect information. She said it appeared to be biased against her. She explained she had wanted her mother, Mrs C, to return home after a short term stay in a care home and had been getting the property ready. That had been the original intention and Miss B said she did not understand why the Council had changed its mind. Miss B told the Council she did not think it had reached a fair and impartial decision. She explained why she did not think the Council’s safeguarding investigation was fair or robust. She asked the Council for more information.
  2. Miss B told us the Council failed to explain to her what her mother’s best interest meant or to explain exactly the issues raised in the safeguarding process so she could address them. She said the Council showed no concern for her health and welfare.
  3. We are not an appeal body with powers to overturn the Council’s decisions. It was, ultimately, for the Council to reach a final decision about Mrs C’s care. As decision-maker, the Council had to decide how much weight to attach to each piece of relevant information. The Council reached its decision after giving Miss B an opportunity to express her views and considering the information it had gathered about Mrs C’s situation. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process. In those circumstances we cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision. Miss B can seek advice about challenging the Council’s decision by going to court. It would not be unreasonable to expect her to consider doing this if she is seeking the overturning of the Council’s decision. That is because, although there would be a cost to Miss B, it is the only way for her to seek the overturning of the Council’s decision.
  4. The Council had to look into concerns raised about management of Mrs C’s finances and to tell the Department for Work and Pensions about the outcome of its investigation. We do not have powers to change that decision. If Miss B wishes to challenge the appointeeship decision, she would need to consider going to court. A court of law is the appropriate body to consider such matters.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision about Mrs C’s care and it is not unreasonable to expect Miss B to go to court if she wishes to challenge the Council’s decisions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings