Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about where Ms C’s adult social care needs should be met. The Court of Protection is better placed to decide such a dispute. It is stressful that Ms C may have to move, but there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council wants her relative, Ms C, to move home against her will.

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 or continue 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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms C lives in extra care housing, which is an independent property with care and support on site if you need it. Ms C has a package of care visits throughout the day. The Council arranges Ms C’s care so remains responsible to ensure her social care needs are met.
6. The care provider who runs the extra care property gave notice on Ms C’s tenancy, saying it could no longer meet her needs since a decline in health. Ms C does not want to move.
7. The Council has taken the correct steps to work with the care provider to try and enable Ms C to stay for as long as possible. The Council has assessed Ms C’s capacity to make decisions about her long-term care needs, and decided she does not have capacity. So, the Council will make a best interest decision on behalf of Ms C, which will include Ms B’s views. The Council has given Ms B a list of alternative providers, it has apologised these were not local enough and said it can tell Ms B which providers are in the relevant area.
8. I understand this is a stressful situation for Ms B and Ms C, but there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions after the care provider has served notice. The Council has taken the correct steps.
9. The Ombudsman cannot tell the care provider and Council that Ms C must stay. The Council must meet Ms C’s care and support needs. If the care provider can no longer meet Ms C’s needs, then she may need to move to a placement that can meet her needs. The Court of Protection is better placed to decide a dispute about Ms C’s capacity to make decisions about her care, and about where Ms C should live.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. It is a stressful situation, but the Council has acted correctly following the care provider ending Ms C’s tenancy. The Court of Protection is better placed to decide a dispute about where Ms C should live.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman