Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision-making and care assessments. The Council carried out the assessments in line with legislation. There is no evidence of administrative fault in how it reached those decisions. The Council’s later involvement with the Court of Protection means part of the complaint is outside our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about her mother’s capacity assessments caried out by the Council, the decision to house her mother (Ms Y) in a residential care home and the conduct of the social worker. Ms X said this caused her distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. An adult with possible care and support needs may choose to refuse an assessment. In these circumstances councils do not have to carry out an assessment. Where a council identifies that an adult lacks mental capacity and that carrying out a needs assessment would be in the adult’s best interests, it must do so.
9. According to the information I have seen, in 2024, the Council was involved with Ms Y, and from late October 2024, had documented significant care and support needs. Ms X was unhappy with the Council’s assessment of Ms Y, saying it took decisions on her behalf she did not agree with, it had falsified information and should not have appointed an independent advocate.
10. The records show the Council carried out Care Act and Mental Capacity Act assessments. Qualified social workers are permitted to complete capacity assessments, and the Council’s records show the assessments were issue specific (finances, residences, tenancy and legal proceedings) and evidence based. The Council consulted Ms Y and Ms X and other family members. It also appointed an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA).
11. Additionally, the assessments identified several options for how Ms Y’s care and support needs could be managed and set out the benefits and risks attached to each option. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council decided on a placement, or the appointment of an IMCA. As indicated at paragraph four, we do not substitute our decision with the Council’s. We examine how the Council made its decisions and if it followed the legislation we cannot criticise it.
12. The decision for Ms X’s mother to remain in residential care in March following assessment is being considered in Court of Protection proceedings, which places it outside our jurisdiction as those matters will be decided by the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation. Additionally, some of the complaint is outside our jurisdiction as it relates to on-going legal proceedings.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman