Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to file an application to the Court of Protection which led to interim restrictions being placed on the family regarding contact with his son. This is because an investigation would not lead to different findings or outcomes.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to file an application to the Court of Protection which led to interim restrictions being placed on the family regarding contact with his son.

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 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 an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• investigation would not lead to different findings or outcomes.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s son, Mr B, has care and support needs. The Council identified a supported living placement for Mr B. A best interest decision was made that it was in Mr B’s best interest to move to the placement. Mr B moved in June 2022.
6. The Council said the first few weeks of the placement was challenging, and that the Council and care provider considered there was a serious risk to the placement breaking down. The Council therefore decided to apply to the Court of Protection for an interim personal welfare order. This led to an interim restriction for the family not to remove Mr B from the placement.
7. Mr X complained:
• The Council did not tell the family about its concerns prior to submitting the application and failed to schedule agreed review meetings.
• The Council planned to make the application less than one month after Mr B moved to the supported living placement.
• Council failed to properly explain the court process for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DOLS) authorisation and the personal welfare application. The Council also presented the personal welfare application as being part of the DOLS process.
• The Council failed to adequately supervise the social worker.
• The social worker’s witness statement to Court contained untrue, misleading, and irrelevant historical evidence.
8. An independent investigator considered Mr X’s complaints and upheld several of the complaints, including the complaints about the Council not communicating with the family about the concerns prior to making the application and the failure to properly explain the various court processes. All other complaints were not upheld.
9. The Council considered the independent investigator’s report and accepted all findings. The Council offered the following remedy:
• £300 in recognition of the distress caused to Mr X and his family during the period.
• £300 to recognise the time and trouble experienced in pursuing the complaint.
• £300 to recognise the distress and anxiety caused during the period.
10. I have reviewed the independent investigator’s report and am satisfied it is a thorough investigation into Mr X's points. The investigator has outlined relevant evidence considered and provided their clear rationale for why the complaint was upheld or not. Therefore, an Ombudsman investigation is not proportionate as an investigation would not lead to any different findings.
11. The Ombudsman has published a guidance on remedies, which sets out the general range of financial payments to recognise distress and time and trouble. Our guidance noted we can recommend a payment of up to £500 to recognise distress and time and trouble caused.
12. I acknowledge Mr X is dissatisfied with the financial remedy offered by the Council. Mr X also wants the Council to reimburse him for the legal costs incurred.
13. I have considered whether an Ombudsman investigation would lead to recommendation for the Council to reimburse Mr X’s legal costs. We would only be able to recommend reimburse of legal costs if we would find, if not for the fault, the Council would not have started legal proceedings. However, I do not consider we could make this finding. So, the injustice flowing from the faults identified by the independent investigator is uncertainty, rather than quantifiable financial loss.
14. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as the Council’s remedy offer is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance and an investigation would not lead to different outcomes.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to different findings or outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman