Summary: Mr F complained about the care and support the Council put in place for his grandson, Mr D and a failure to apply for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisation. The Council failed to renew the DoLS which caused uncertainty to Mr D. We found no fault in the way the Council determined Mr D’s care and support. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mr D £500 to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr F complained on behalf of his grandson, Mr D, that the Council:
1. Placed unreasonable and excessive restrictions on Mr D from September 2024 to July 2025 and failed to provide evidence to support the need for this.
2. Did not apply for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisation after the previous one expired in January 2024.
3. Delayed finding Mr D accommodation and a new care provider when he was due to leave his in July 2025.
4. Failed to assess his finances for affordability of his new accommodation.
2. As a result, Mr D missed out on activities and was isolated, worsening his mental health. Mr D was subject to unlawful restrictions and the family have experienced significant distress.
3. Mr F wanted acknowledgement that the restrictions imposed by Care Provider breached Mr D’s human rights. He also wanted evidence and explanations of the Council’s decisions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
7. 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).
8. We may investigate complaints from the person affected by the complaint issues, or from someone else if they have given their consent. If the person affected cannot give their consent, we may investigate a complaint from a person we decide is a suitable representative. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A or 34C)
9. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. We do not consider repeat complaints about the same matters. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
10. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
11. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
12. 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)
13. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be or have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))
14. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

15. We have already investigated previous complaints from Mr F about similar matters covering the period November 2023 to August 2024. That investigation considered Mr D’s move into supported living in December 2023. In line with our policy in paragraph 9 above, I have not re-investigated this period.
16. Mr F came back to us in October 2025. Our policy says we will not investigate matters that happened after the complaint was submitted to us. He referred to Mr D’s care and support and accommodation after July 2025 but his complaint to the Council was made in May 2025 so complaints about events after July are premature, as set out in paragraph 11. I have therefore investigated the period September 2024 to July 2025.
17. The Court of Protection will be considering the restrictions placed on Mr D as part of the DoLS authorisation. We are barred from investigating matters considered in court (as set out in paragraph 12) but we can investigate whether a council acted with fault prior to starting court proceedings. As the Council had not applied to the Court of Protection for a DoLS authorisation, I have investigated Mr D’s care and support between September 2024 and July 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

18. I spoke to Mr F about the complaint and considered the information he and the Council sent and relevant law, policy and guidance.
19. Mr F and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Care and Support

20. The Care Act 2014 requires local authorities to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. The assessment determines what the person's needs are and whether the person has any needs which are eligible for support from the council. The assessment must consider how the person’s needs impact on their wellbeing and the results they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where suitable their carer or any other person they might want involved.
21. Where councils have determined that a person has any eligible needs, they must meet those needs. The person's needs and how they will be met must be set out in a care and support plan.

Charging for care and support

22. Where a council arranges care and support to meet a person’s needs, it may charge the adult for the cost of the care. (Care Act 2014, section 14(1))
23. Councils must assess the means of people who have less than the upper capital limit, to decide how much they can contribute towards the cost of their care. In assessing what a person can afford to pay, a council must take into account their income, such as pensions or benefits.
24. People receiving care and support other than in a care home need to keep a certain level of income to cover their living costs. After charging, a person’s income must not reduce below a weekly amount known as the minimum income guarantee (MIG). This is set by the government and reviewed each year.

Mental capacity

25. A person must be presumed to have capacity to make a decision unless it is established that they lack capacity. Councils must assess someone’s ability to make a decision, when that person’s capacity is in doubt. Any act done for, or any decision made on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be in that person’s best interests. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 sets out the steps that decision makers must follow to determine what is in a person’s best interests.
26. If there is a conflict about what is in a person’s best interests, and all efforts to resolve the dispute have failed, the Court of Protection might need to decide what is in the person’s best interests.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS)

27. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards provide legal protection for individuals who lack mental capacity to consent to care or treatment and live in a care home, hospital or supported living accommodation. The DoLS protect people from being deprived of their liberty, unless it is in their best interests and there is no less restrictive alternative.
28. The legislation sets out the procedure to follow to obtain authorisation to deprive an individual of their liberty. For people being cared for somewhere other than a care home or hospital, deprivation of liberty will only be lawful with an order from the Court of Protection. Standard authorisation can be granted for up to 12 months. (Mental Capacity Act 2005)
29. If there is a conflict about a deprivation of liberty, and all efforts to resolve it have failed, the case can be referred to the Court of Protection.

Human Rights

30. The Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to. This includes the right to liberty and security of person, and respect for private and family life. The Act requires all local authorities to respect and protect individuals’ rights. Not all rights operate in the same way. The right to liberty (Article 5) is a limited right, which means a person can lawfully be deprived of their liberty only in specific circumstances and only if the legal safeguards are properly applied.
31. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Human Rights Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Human Rights Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.

What happened

32. I have summarised the key events. This is not meant to detail everything that happened.

Background

33. Mr F’s grandson, Mr D, has learning disability, ADHD, autism and anxiety and depression. His mother, Ms B, has power of attorney. Mr D requires support with all aspects of his daily life. He was attending a specialist college outside the Council's area and living in supported living accommodation. Mr D’s care was provided by Agency X.
34. In January 2023, the Court of Protection decided Mr D did not have capacity to make decisions about his care, support and residence. The Court authorised a DoLS application for continuous supervision and restrictions on leaving the accommodation. Mr D had one-to-one support at all times. He required constant supervision because of poor danger awareness and communication difficulties and serious risks linked to his behaviour and self‑harm.
35. In November 2023, the Council agreed to two-to-one support following incidents of challenging behaviour, including verbal abuse, throwing objects and property damage. Agency X’s risk assessments said Mr D required two-to-one staffing at all times to manage those risks. The support in place was two-to-one support for 15 hours a day, a wake night and a sleep in night each night.
36. The DoLS authorisation expired in January 2024. A best interest meeting on 17 January 2024 agreed that these arrangements remained necessary and were in Mr D’s best interests.

September 2024 to July 2025

37. Mr F raised concerns with the Council about the two-to-one care and asked why it was necessary. There was a best interest meeting on 4 September 2024. The note says the meeting agreed that the current living arrangement was the least restrictive option, but it meant Mr D was missing out on socialising outside college. Because he required two‑to‑one support in the community, activities such as going to the cinema were costly. It was agreed that Mr D would remain in his current home, subject to the restrictions set out in his care and support plan. A further best interests meeting would be needed to decide where Mr D should live when he left college in summer 2025, his education, health and care plan ceased and he moved back to Kent.
38. The meeting agreed to various actions, including reviewing Mr D’s night‑time support, exploring opportunities for Mr D to socialise with his peers, contacting the cinema, and completing the DoLS renewal. Mr F says none of these actions were taken; there is evidence the Council contacted the cinema but it is not clear if there was a response. The Council received a GP letter for the DoLS and completed DoLS screening, but no application was made to the Court.
39. There were transition and annual review meetings over the next few months, and the family said they were told they would be sent the risk assessment used to justify Mr D’s two-to-one care. Mr F brought a complaint to the Ombudsman about events in winter 2023.
40. In January 2025, Mr F again raised concerns with the Council about Mr D’s isolation, the level of restrictions, the absence of a current DoLS authorisation, affordability, and poor communication. Further transition review meetings discussed future accommodation and whether waking night care and two-to-one support remained necessary.
41. A financial assessment on 7 April determined that Mr D’s contribution to the cost of his care and support was £3.49 per week.
42. Mr F made formal complaints to both the Council and Agency X in April 2025. He said the restrictions on Mr D were unlawful and decisions had not been properly explained.
43. Mr F and Mr D’s college contacted the Council on 14 May concerned that no supported living provider had yet been identified for Mr D’s placement after he left college, so transition planning could not start. Mr F escalated his concerns to the chief executive and continued to chase responses from the Council.
44. The Council started a search for a new supported living placement on 22 May. A property and new care provider were identified in June.
45. A care and support assessment in June 2025 said Mr D lacked capacity to make decisions about his care. He needed support to live safely, maintain his home, manage personal hygiene, eat properly, go out independently and keep himself safe. The assessment says Mr D had two-to-one support following some incidents and due to unpredictable behaviour and safety concerns.
46. The care and support plan was for nine hours one-to-one support while in the placement per day, six hours two-to-one support while out in the community each day, and one sleep in staff every night. The assessment said that whilst two-to-one support was provided, carers would not be with Mr D side by side all of the time but would support when needed.
47. The Council’s solicitor wrote to Mr F on 9 July. They said if Mr F disagreed with the outcome of the care and support assessment and the restrictions Mr D was under, he should refer to the Court of Protection to determine what was in Mr D’s best interest.
48. Mr D left college and moved to his new placement on 28 July.
49. The Council replied to Mr F’s complaint on 1 October. It said the rent for Mr D’s new accommodation was relatively high as it was shared accommodation for two service users, but a second service user had not yet moved in. The Council was checking the DoLS application before submitting it to the Court. In December 2025, the Court issued an order for a hearing in January 2026, requiring papers in advance.
50. The DoLS application had not been made by March 2026. The Council said there had been delay because in late 2023 it had decided to wait for Mr D to settle into his new accommodation before completing accommodation‑specific capacity assessments and care plans. It was then unable to prioritise the application in 2024 due to staff capacity pressures, service restructuring, and other urgent court work. The Council again delayed the application once it became clear Mr D would move again in 2025, as any court application needed to be specific to his next placement.

My findings

51. Mr F complained the Council placed unreasonable and excessive restrictions on Mr D from September 2024 to July 2025 and failed to provide evidence to support the need for this.
52. It is not the Ombudsman's role to decide what, if any, care and support a person needs. That is the Council's role. My role is to consider if the Council has followed the correct process for establishing a person's needs and if it acted correctly when this process was complete. In doing so we look at what information the Council considered, and if it took account of the service user’s and carer’s wishes. If a council considers all this information properly we cannot find it at fault just because a person disagrees with its decision, or outcome of an assessment.
53. From September 2024 to June 2025, Mr D was receiving the care and support package agreed in November 2023. I have not investigated what happened in November 2023 as that period was previously considered by us in a separate complaint. I note there were two best interest decisions in January 2024 and September 2024 which concluded that it was in Mr D’s best interest for the restrictions to remain in place. If Mr F had disputed this, he was able to challenge it in the Court of Protection.
54. I have reviewed the care and support assessment carried out in June 2025 and the subsequent care and support plan. The assessment describes Mr D's needs and how these can be met. The assessment involved Ms B and Mr F. There is no evidence of fault in the way it was carried out.
55. However, there is fault by the Council as it failed to apply to the Court of Protection for a DoLS authorisation after the previous one expired in January 2024. Although there have been best interest decisions, capacity assessments and discussions about applying, the Council has delayed making a renewal application for a prolonged period and is at risk of the restrictions on Mr D being found unlawful by a court.
56. I find the Council did not properly apply the legal safeguards designed to protect Mr D. As a result it failed to take adequate account of his rights under Article 5 of the Human Rights Act, including the need for lawful authorisation and access to review. This is fault.
57. This fault caused Mr D uncertainty and distress as he cannot know whether the Court would have confirmed, varied or reduced the restrictions he was subject to. That uncertainty is an injustice.
58. The Council was aware by September 2024 that Mr D would be leaving college in July 2025 and therefore moving back to Kent. Mr F complained the Council delayed finding new accommodation and a new care provider. The care and support statutory guidance says councils should plan changes in advance and maintain continuity of care. The Council started the process on 22 May and had found the new placement by 11 July 2025, before Mr D had to move. I do not find fault.
59. Mr F complained the Council failed to assess Mr D’s his finances for affordability of his new accommodation. There was a financial assessment in April 2025. I do not find fault in the Council’s assessment. I have not investigated the affordability of the accommodation, as explained in paragraphs 15 and 16.
60. When we have evidence of fault causing injustice we will seek a remedy for that injustice which aims to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in if nothing had gone wrong. When this is not possible, we will normally consider asking for a symbolic payment to acknowledge the avoidable distress caused. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way that a court might. Our guidance on remedies says that to remedy distress and uncertainty caused by fault, a moderate symbolic payment up to £500 may be appropriate.

Back to top

Action

61. Within a month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to write to Mr D with an apology for not applying to the Court of Protection to authorise his deprivation of liberty and pay him £500 to remedy the uncertainty that has caused.
62. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
63. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

64. There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman