Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has failed to assess her sister’s needs properly and has failed to get the deprivation of her sister’s liberty authorised. The Council has delayed in reviewing her sister’s needs and in applying to have the deprivation of her liberty authorised. It also failed to ensure she received a consolidated response to all her concerns. The Council needs to apologise to Mrs X for the distress it has caused. It also needs to apply to the Court of Protection to have the deprivation of her sister’s liberty authorised and take action to improve its services.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains the Council has failed to assess her sister’s needs properly and has failed to get the deprivation of her liberty authorised.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered evidence provided by Mrs X’s advocate and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. Mrs X’s sister, Ms Y, has a learning disability. She has lived in the same accommodation for many years. However, in June 2023 it was deregistered as a care home and turned into supported living accommodation. This meant a deprivation of living safeguard which had been in place for Ms Y to live in the care home lapsed, as it could not apply to her placement in the community. Mrs X repeatedly asked the Council to have the deprivation of her sister’s liberty authorised.
8. Until April 2024, the Council used HCRG Care Group (HCRG) to provide some of its social work duties, including assessing people, such as Ms Y, under the Care Act 2014.

2023

9. HCRG reviewed Ms Y’s needs on 9 June 2023. It noted the need to ask the Court of Protection to approve the deprivation of Ms Y’s liberty in the community. This reflected the fact the gate to her home had a padlock and staff always supported her when leaving the property.
10. Mrs X complained to the Council in August about the result of her sister’s annual review. She said the review did not reflect the support she provided to her sister and contained “biased, factual untruths and incorrect information”. She asked for a reassessment and said she had always been willing to advocate for her sister, so it had been unnecessary to look for an alternative advocate. She said the review she received in July had 17 pages missing, and the care and support plan had nearly five pages missing. Mrs X addressed her complaint to Council officer A. But the Council says she sent it to HCRG.
11. The Council says HCRG at first dealt with Mrs X’s letter as an informal complaint under its complaints procedure and sent an informal response within three days. It has provided a copy of a file note, written by Council officer A. This said the Council would make changes to the review but would need a full description of the “factual errors”. It had not been able to consult the officer who did the review, as they had left. Officer A had apologised on behalf of the team if Mrs X was made to feel uncomfortable within the review. The Council made a referral to a behaviour nurse to review the care provider’s approach to Ms Y. The Council did not tell Mrs X about the referral or the outcome.
12. HCRG met Mrs X on 25 October to discuss her concerns. When it responded in writing to her complaint on 13 November, it said:
• It had no reason to believe its practitioner’s behaviour had fallen below the standards of conduct it expected them to meet during or after the assessment.
• All social care employees were trained to practice in a person-centred way and it verified such skills when interviewing people. Employees received regular supervision which identified caseload and conduct-related issues.
• It had discussed Mrs X’s request to update her sister’s review with the Council, which had already amended the review and made notes within the document where amendments were not possible. It had sent Mrs X a copy of the amended review.
• At Mrs X’s request, it had recommended holding a new review meeting. Ms Y was on the waiting list, but it could not say when the review would take place.
• The allocated worker would follow up on the need to have the deprivation of Ms Y’s liberty authorised.
• Mrs X’s concerns about not being involved in planning for her sister’s care was a matter between her and the care provider, so it could not make any recommendations. It had suggested to officer A supporting the care provider and Mrs X with improving their relationship, to ensure the best outcomes for Ms Y.

2024

13. In August 2024 the Council got a diagnostic letter from a Consultant Psychiatrist, which is needed to apply to the Court of Protection to authorise the deprivation of someone’s liberty.
14. In October 2024 a social worker contacted the care provider to start gathering information for a review of Ms X’s needs and to prepare the paperwork for applying to the Court of Protection to authorise the deprivation of Ms X’s liberty in her home. They also contacted Mrs X to arrange a date for the review.
15. On 13 November Mrs X provided her comments to the social worker for the review of her sister’s needs. The social worker agreed to send her a draft of Ms Y’s review and to discuss it with her.

2025

16. The Council says it assessed Ms Y’s mental capacity under the Mental Capacity Act in January 2025. It also reviewed Ms Y’s needs and updated her care and support plan.
17. When I spoke to Mrs X in February, she told me she had not received copies of the review or care and support plan.

Is there evidence of fault by the Council which caused injustice?

18. HCRG identified the need to apply to the Court of Protection to authorise the deprivation of Ms Y’s liberty in her home in June 2023. It took no action to progress this until August 2024. Since then progress has remained slow and no application has been made to the Court and there appears to be no timescale for doing so. That is fault by the Council. Authorising the deprivation of someone’s liberty is an important part of the human rights framework, which ensure people are not illegally deprived of their freedom. The Council needs to make the application without further delay.
19. When responding to Mrs X’s complaint in November 2023, HCRG said it had been agreed to review Ms Y’s needs again. But that did not happen for another year, so there was a gap of 19 months between reviews. Under the Care & Support Statutory Guidance, Councils should review people care and support plans at least every 12 months.
20. HCRG told Mrs X concerns about not being involved in planning for her sister’s care were between her and the care provider. It suggested supporting Mrs X and the care provider to improve their relationship. When people complain about councils and other commissioned services, we expect them to receive a consolidated response. The failure to provide Mrs X with a consolidated response was fault, for which the Council is accountable. Mrs X says no action was taken to improve her relationship with the care provider.

Back to top

Action

21. When a council commissions or arranges for another organisation to provide services we treat actions taken by or on behalf of that organisation as actions taken on behalf of the council and in the exercise of the council’s functions. Where we find fault with the actions of the service provider, we can make recommendations to the council alone. Here we have found fault with the actions of HCRG and the Council, and make the following recommendations to the Council.
22. I recommend the Council:
• Within four weeks:
1. writes to Mrs X apologising for the failure to ensure she received a consolidated response to her complaint, the delay in reviewing her sister’s needs, and the delay in applying to Court of Protection to authorise the deprivation of her sister’s liberty; and
2. sends Mrs X the January 2025 review of her sister’s needs and updated care and support plan to comment on.
• Within eight weeks:
1. applies to the Court of Protection to authorise the deprivation of Ms Y’s liberty;
2. takes action to ensure people’s care and support plans are reviewed at least every 12 months;
3. identifies the action it is going to take to ensure that, when people raise complaints about the Council and other commissioned services, they receive a consolidated response to all their concerns.
23. The Council has agreed to do this. It should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

24. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman