Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about way the Council conducted a Best Interests Meeting for her son, Mr C, or the way it treated her. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mrs B wants.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained about the way the Council conducted a Best Interests Meeting about where her son, Mr C should live. Mrs B says the Council pressurised her to attend the meeting, did not get all the information it should have from third parties, instructed an advocate for Mr C against her wishes, alleged she was not acting in Mr C’s best interests without evidence to support this view, and shared this unfounded allegation with everyone at the meeting. Mrs B says this has caused her immense distress and worry for over a year and wants all her complaints upheld, an apology and recognition of the distress the Council has caused her, admit procedures were not followed and send corrected information to all who received the incorrect information about her. Mrs B wants assurances this will not happen to anyone else.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council acknowledged Mrs B felt pressurised into attending the Best Interests Meeting and upheld this element of her complaint. With regard to Mrs B’s complaint about not including information from third parties, it said it could not discern whether specific information was included but confirmed there was reference to the role of Mr C’s provider during transition and a member of staff from his previous placement was present and contributed to the meeting. It partially upheld this element of Mrs B’s complaint. It did not uphold Mrs B’s complaints that actions were not taken in Mr C’s best interests or that is should not have shared information with attendees at the meeting. It explained sharing information is good practice for record keeping and transparency. Mrs B is concerned there is no evidence to support the Council’s view that she was not acting in Mr B’s best interests and did not want a referral to an advocate. The Council says Mrs B’s objections to a referral is noted on the record but acknowledged, on reflection the record could have been rephrased more compassionately to reflect the difficulties Mrs B was experiencing engaging in discussions/meetings and available options for Mr C. It apologised for the distress caused and says;

• learning from this complaint will be discussed with the Learning Disability Team;
• discussion will take place with the Learning Disability Team about compassionate support to family and carers;
• that all options available to a person are included in any Best Interest decision making;
• that all relevant reports are considered in any Best Interests decisions.

6. Mrs B is unhappy that all of her complaints were not upheld and wants the Council to tell the attendees of the meeting it was wrong to share information with them. While it is understandable Mrs B was upset, trying to do the best for Mr C when disagreeing with the Council, the Council has a duty to ensure Mr C’s best interests are considered. We could not say it was fault for the Council to arrange for an independent advocate to do this on his behalf.
7. The Council has explained why it felt it needed to involve an independent advocate to act in Mr C’s best interest, noted Mrs B disagreed with the referral, explained why it shared information with all attendees of the meeting, apologised for the distress caused, recommended learning for the future to minimise the risk of families incurring a similar experience to that Mrs B experienced and acknowledged wording could have been more compassionate to reflect the difficulties Mrs B was going through. Further investigation by us could achieve no more than this.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because further investigation could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mrs B wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman