Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council wrongly assessed her grandmother’s care needs. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to properly assess her grandmother, Mrs Y’s, care needs. As a result, she says Mrs Y’s care needs are not being met.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X and many of her extended family moved to a different area, around 1 mile from where Mrs Y lives. They identified an extra care facility close to their new address which they thought would be suitable for Mrs Y and asked the Council to reassess her needs and move her there.
7. The Council carried out an assessment of Mrs Y’s needs. During the assessment, Ms X acted as a translator for Mrs Y who does not speak English. The assessor recommended an extra care facility. The case went to the Council’s Panel for a decision. It determined Mrs Y did not need an extra care facility because her needs could be met in her current supported living accommodation with her home care provider. The Panel said accommodation should be determined on the person’s care needs and wishes and should be the least restrictive.
8. Following a complaint from Ms X, the Council said that it was important to capture Mrs Y’s wishes and feelings about where she lived to help inform future decisions if she lost capacity and her care needs changed. The Council suggested it carry out a mental capacity assessment with an independent translator. Ms X declined this and complained to the Ombudsman. Her complaints included:
• the Council’s failure to take all relevant information into account;
• accusations of dishonesty against the family when they translated for Mrs Y; and
• a failure by the Council to properly assess Mrs Y’s needs.
9. Unhappy with the Council’s response, Ms X complained to the Ombudsman.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we will not substitute our decision for one correctly made. The Council assessor reviewed Mrs Y’s care and support needs and made a recommendation for an extra care facility. The Panel considered the review but rejected that recommendation and instead decided the sheltered living facility where Mrs Y currently lived was suitable to meet her needs. It explained its reasoning to Ms X and also suggested ways to record Mrs Y’s wishes for the future if she lost capacity. In doing so, it was entitled to use an independent translator to ensure there was no influence from family members. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions or decision-making process and so we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman