Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mrs Y’s complaint about the social care service her adult son received. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, or significant injustice to Mrs Y’s son, to justify any further action.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs Y, complains about the care delivered to her adult son, Mr X, by the Council. She says the Council:
• Withdrew Mr X’s care without warning after Mrs Y raised concerns about “covert practices”. It then failed to arrange replacement care in time, leaving him without care for three hours.
• Failed to do a safeguarding enquiry after Mr X was harmed during care. She says he burned and cut himself, and he was left without heating.
• Ignored her complaints about carers, which included allegations of unprofessional, negligent and abusive behaviour.
• Ignored expert reports (particularly an assessment of motor and process skills, or ‘AMPS’) and failed to assess Mr X’s mental capacity. This meant its assessment of his needs – which led to it stopping his care – was inadequate.

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 we 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered evidence provided by Mrs Y and the Council.
4. Mrs Y 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

5. After the Council stopped Mrs Y’s direct payment account and started delivering Mr X’s care itself, she complained about the transfer between the two arrangements. However, she claims there was only one lunchtime session missed. Even if this was true, it does not represent a significant injustice.
6. One of the things Mrs Y complains about is ‘covert practices’ or a ‘covert order’. The Council told her it did not know what this meant. In any event, and whatever Mrs Y is referring to, it did not feature in the Council’s decision-making.
7. The Council’s care records either do not support Mrs Y’s allegations or directly contradict them. For example, she says Mr X was severely burned on several occasions. However, the one time this was reported to carers it turned out to have been dry skin.
8. Other injuries or harm which Mrs Y says Mr X suffered do not feature in the care records at all. I consider it likely that, had Mr X, say, repeatedly burned and cut himself while under carer supervision (as Mrs Y alleges), there would have been at least some reference to this in the records. There is not.
9. The Council considered the allegations Mrs Y made (including the conduct allegations about one of its carers) and responded to them. Its responses were reasonable. There are no obvious inadequacies in its complaint handling.
10. The Council’s needs assessment fully explains its reasons for disagreeing with Mrs Y about what Mr X needed. These reasons were largely based on its interpretation of Mr X’s care records, which, in its view, demonstrated that he could become more independent. Its analysis of the records was a matter of professional judgment which I would be unable to question.
11. The Council’s occupational therapist also felt Mr X may have been able to learn to manage risk in the home without support. This, again, was a professional opinion which I would be unable to question.
12. Although Mrs Y is unhappy that the Council apparently didn’t consider an AMPS from 2018, I note that the AMPS said, “with adaptation and skill development [Mr X] is capable of learning new … daily living skills and being more [independent] around the home”. This does not obviously contradict the Council’s conclusions.
13. No social care or health professionals have raised any concerns about Mr X’s mental capacity. Consequently, I have no reason to doubt his ability to make his own decisions. And he has not raised any concerns about his care at any point. The care records actually suggest the opposite – that he had good relationships with the carers and made no complaints at all.
14. Mr X has now moved into his own property without social care support. This suggests he suffered no injustice from the Council’s decision that he was able to be more independent. He appears able to ask for support if he needs it in future.
15. For all these reasons, there is not enough evidence of either fault or injustice to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Decision

16. I have discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman