Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council failing to assess his brother’s health and weight needs because the Council has already investigated, apologised, upheld most of his concerns, and agreed on actions. Further investigation is unlikely to achieve anything more.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains agencies responsible for his brother Y’s care have failed to address Y’s obesity despite Mr X repeatedly raising concerns for over two years. Mr X believes Y lacks capacity to make informed choices about his weight and diet and the care provider, social workers, and health team breached their duty of care by not taking responsibility. Mr X wants the Council to take action to help support Y to reduce the risks to his health by being obese.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X says for over two and a half years, since the care provider took over the care contract in 2022, he repeatedly raised concerns about Y’s weight, his understanding of health risks, and the need for structured support. Despite this, the Council did not complete a mental capacity assessment (MCA) on weight, diet, or health risks.
5. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s concerns about the support Y received in managing his weight and associated health risks. It agreed that although health professionals handle weight management, the Council is responsible for support planning and should have taken a coordinated, multi-disciplinary approach to helping Y better manage his weight and diet.
6. The Council agreed it should have sought advice from health professionals about weight targets or timescales and ensured Y’s support plan reflected this guidance.
7. The Council has accepted its failings and agreed it should have completed an MCA to determine whether Y understands the risks linked to his diet and weight. It said if Y lacks capacity, professionals could make a best interest’s decision about managing his diet. If he has capacity, they can support him to make informed choices.
8. The Council apologised to Mr X for gaps in practice, confusion between social care and health roles, and the lack of coordinated working. It confirmed arrangements are underway for an MCA and said social workers will work jointly with health professionals and the care provider going forward.
9. The Council’s complaint response to Mr X is detailed and thorough. It has upheld large parts of the concerns he raised about his Y’s care and set out the action the Council intends to take to improve and address the concerns raised. We will not normally investigate a complaint where we are unlikely to add to a previous investigation. It is not a good use of public money to do so. In this case, the question for us is whether our intervention would add anything to the investigation the Council has carried out and the action it proposes to take. There is nothing to suggest that it would do so.

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has already investigated, apologised, upheld most of Mr X’s concerns, and agreed on actions. Further investigation is unlikely to achieve anything more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman