Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council proposed an unsuitable care placement for her adult son, Mr Y, which put him at risk of homelessness and caused her distress and financial loss. There is insufficient evidence of fault and we could not achieve what Ms X wants.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council proposed an unsuitable care placement for her son, Mr Y, meaning she had no choice but to gift him money to buy a share in a shared ownership home. She says the matter put Mr X at risk of homelessness and has caused her distress and financial loss. She wants the Council to apologise, accept responsibility and refund her the money she gifted to her 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 X’s adult son, Mr Y has learning disabilities and needs 24 hour care and support. During 2024, Mr Y needed to move to different accommodation. The Council proposed Mr Y should move to Placement A.
6. Ms X disagreed with this decision. She told the Council that Placement A was not suitable for Mr Y, but she says the Council refused to listen to her concerns. She says she had no choice but to apply to the Court of Protection for deputyship to enable her to manage Mr Y’s financial affairs and to gift him money enabling him to buy a share in a shared ownership home.
7. In its complaint response, the Council said although it had proposed Placement A, Placement A had not completed its assessment with Mr Y so the Council could not know whether Placement A would have been able to meet Mr Y’s needs. It said in any event, it would have found Mr Y a suitable placement. It was her decision to choose a different option by applying for to the Courts for deputyship and purchasing the property on Mr Y’s behalf, so it was not responsible for her costs and would not reimburse these.
8. We will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault. Although I accept Ms X disagreed with the Council’s proposed placement, it was her decision to gift the money to Mr Y and, as his deputy, to purchase the property on his behalf. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation. In addition, we could not require the Council to refund the money she gifted to Mr Y and so could not achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and we could not achieve what she wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman