Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care provided for Mr X. Investigation would be unlikely to lead to a finding that he suffered significant injustice as a result of fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains on her father, Mr X’s behalf. She says he received inadequate care and support from the Council and is still not receiving the correct level of support. She says one worker behaved badly and tried to put Mr X off expressing a desire for residential care. She says she has to make up the gaps herself.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council provided copies of two care assessments of Mr X. The earlier of the two dated from December 2024, and the second, though undated, was written in February 2026 or later.
6. The second assessment, carried out after Mrs Y complained, is significant. It was detailed, and stated how it had established his capacity to make decisions about his care. It also provided multiple quotations of what he had said about the care he had and might have. It showed Mr X had a consistent wish to maintain his own autonomy, and that while he accepted care visits throughout the day, he was reluctant to accept extra help with personal care or going out. It recorded that his nighttime needs had been recorded by a monitor for a month, and that he was able to go to bed and get up consistently, as well as making himself hot drinks and fetching food from the kitchen, though not preparing food. It stated he needed reminding to take his medication and to change his clothes. It suggested various extra provision the Council was ready to make, including respite care to relieve Mrs Y, but recorded that Mr X was only prepared to accept some of what was offered. It accepted that there were risks in Mr X remaining at home, and that his food choices were sometimes not good, but it was clear he had capacity to decide. Were we to investigate, it is unlikely we found find fault with the way this assessment was carried out.
7. The Council accepted it took too long to complete a fresh assessment in 2025. But based on the assessment completed in early 2026, it is also unlikely we would find the Council had failed in the months before the assessment to offer provision Mr X would have accepted, whether domiciliary or residential. And it is unlikely we would find that a social worker was the sole cause of Mr X not wanting to move into residential care, even though it is entirely understandable Mrs Y feels he would be safer there.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint on Mr X’s behalf ’s complaint because doing so would be unlikely to find that fault by the Council caused injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman