Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her father, Mr Y, that the Council did not adequately care for Mr Y and showed neglect. The Ombudsman found the Council was not at fault in the way it cared for and supported Mr Y. The Council was at fault for not telling Mrs X the outcome of financial abuse allegations made about her.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained on behalf of her father, Mr Y, that the Council did not adequately care for Mr Y and showed neglect. She said:
• Her concerns about Mr Y’s mental capacity were ignored.
• The Council did not involve the family in decisions.
• The Council’s financial assessments of Mr Y were wrong.
• The Council did not tell her the outcome following a financial abuse allegation made about her.
2. Mrs X considers the lack of family contact contributed to Mr Y’s death and caused emotional distress. She does not feel the Council has properly apologised or provided evidence of the actions it took.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
5. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who has died or who cannot authorise someone to act for them. The complaint may be made by:

• their personal representative (if they have one), or
• someone we consider to be suitable.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(2), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant’s representative, as well as the information we discussed in a telephone conversation.
• Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
• The Mental Capacity Act 2005.
• Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice (23 April 2007).
• The Care Act 2014.
• The Care and Support Statutory Guidance (Updated 26 October 2018).
7. Mrs X 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

Legislation and guidance

8. The Care Act 2014 requires local authorities to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. Where local authorities determine that a person has any eligible needs, they must meet these needs.
9. Councils can make charges for care and support services they provide or arrange. They must assess a person’s finances to decide what contribution he or she should make to their care charges. They should take a person’s capital and savings into account subject to certain conditions. If a person’s capital is over the upper capital limit of £23,250 he or she will be liable to meet the full cost of their care. Once their capital has reduced to less than the upper capital limit, they must only pay an assessed contribution.
10. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 says every adult has the right to make their own decisions and must be presumed to have capacity to make a decision unless it is established they lack capacity. Just because a person makes what look like unwise decisions, they should not be treated as lacking capacity.
11. There should be a reasonable belief someone lacks capacity before a mental capacity assessment is carried out. A lack of capacity cannot be established merely by reference to a person’s age, appearance, condition, or an aspect of their behaviour.
12. An assessment of a person’s capacity to agree to services is part of the care planning process and should be recorded in relevant documentation.
13. Under section 4.53 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice, professional involvement may be needed if family members, carers, or professionals disagree about a person’s capacity.

What happened

14. I have summarised below some of the key events leading to Mrs X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what happened.
15. Mr Y was registered blind and suffered from diabetes. He needed assistance around the house, such as with meals and washing. Due to his diabetes, it was important Mr Y’s dietary needs were controlled so he did not consume too much sugar. He also needed to take insulin regularly.
16. Mr Y suffered financial abuse at the hands of his son in 2016. His home was also damaged and uninhabitable. As a result, Mr Y spent a period in residential care while his home was repaired. Mrs X told me it was agreed by the police, social services, and the care home manager, that a security camera should be installed in Mr Y’s home as a safety measure to protect him from abuse from his son.
17. When Mr Y returned home, Mrs X became involved in his financial affairs. Mrs X assisted Mr Y with shopping and looked after his bank card so she could pay for things he needed.
18. Mr Y needed carers to visit each day to help with meals and housework. He had regular visits from district nurses who gave him his insulin. He also received support from his family, including Mrs X.
19. Mrs X visited Mr Y on 31 May 2018. She found his carer from Nightingale Homecare (the care provider) giving him unsuitable food, so she telephoned the care provider to complain. The care provider said they would raise this with the carer. They also told Mrs X they had notified the Council she was financially abusing and neglecting Mr Y. Mrs X telephoned the Council and it confirmed she was under investigation. However, the Council would not discuss the allegations with her.
20. The following day, Mrs X told me she observed one of Mr Y’s carers on video encouraging him to make accusations about his family. Mrs X heard the carer telling Mr Y it was disgusting the way his family treated him, and that there was no food in the house when in fact there was plenty. Mrs X told the Council relations with Mr Y had broken down and the family was withdrawing its support. Mrs X confirmed she had returned Mr Y’s bank card to him and had no access to his money. She said the family still care about Mr Y and remain happy to be contacted.
21. Mr Y’s social worker visited him on 1 June 2018 to discuss the concerns raised by Mrs X. I have seen the Council’s record of this meeting. Mr Y was happy with the care and support he received. He did not want to change his carers. He asked the Council for help to manage his finances and day to day living. Mr Y asked for the camera installed at his home to be switched off. His social worker had no concerns about his capacity, so did not carry out a formal capacity assessment.
22. Mrs X complained to the care provider on 4 June 2018 after speaking to the CQC. She had recorded a visit by Mr Y’s carer and said the carer:
• Told Mr Y his family were not providing enough food.
• Accused Mr Y’s family of stealing his money.
• Said Mr Y doesn’t need his family because he has carers.
• Made personal comments about Mr Y’s family members.
• Questioned Mr Y about his bank details.
• Used bad language.
• Made light of giving Mr Y inappropriate food, such as crisps, chocolate, and biscuits.
• Made indirect threats about a member of Mr Y’s family.
23. Mrs X telephoned the Council on 4 June 2018 to ask for the camera to be turned back on. The Council said this was Mr Y’s decision.
24. An internal discussion took place on 6 June 2018 between a member of the Council’s quality assurance team and Mr Y’s social worker about a mental capacity assessment. Mr Y’s social worker said she had no concerns about his capacity but would document a formal assessment.
25. The Council reassessed Mr Y’s needs on 6 June 2018 because of difficulties between his former carer and his family. Mr Y said he preferred to manage his own money and have support from carers. He was fully aware of his dietary needs around blood sugar levels. He needed help to plan and prepare meals.
26. Mr Y’s social worker visited him on 13 June 2018 to look at access around his home and bathroom. It was identified that Mr Y needed a new washing machine and mobile phone. Mr Y agreed to the cost of a new washing machine at £224.
27. The care provider responded to Mrs X’s complaint on 15 June 2018. It accepted a carer used inappropriate language and crossed boundaries. It said the carer apologised for any offence caused. The care provider held a disciplinary meeting with the carer and offered them more training. The carer was taken off visits to Mr Y. It did not agree that carers hid Mr Y’s food. It said Mr Y has capacity and carers bought items he asked for. It could not comment on parts of the complaint as the footage was inconclusive. It asked Mrs X to supply the full recordings.
28. Mrs X telephoned the Council on 15 June 2018. She said the care provider was investigating her for financial abuse and neglect. She asked if the Council was also investigating her. Mrs X’s query was passed to Mr Y’s social worker.
29. Mr Y’s social worker contacted Money Matters on 20 June 2018 to discuss support with Mr Y’s finances. She confirmed she did not consider Mrs X was financially abusing Mr Y. There was conflict about what Mr Y chose to spend his money on. This was not communicated to Mrs X.
30. Mrs X submitted a complaint to the Council about the care provider on 24 June 2018. She was unhappy with its complaint response. Mrs X thought it was more serious and the employee should not be allowed to work as a carer.
31. Mrs X also told the care provider she was unhappy with its complaint response. In its second complaint response, dated 25 June 2018, the care provider repeated its findings and accepted a carer exceeded their professional boundaries. The care provider also highlighted some inappropriate behaviour by a member of Mrs X’s family and suggested this was why Mrs X did not provide full video recordings.
32. Mr Y’s social worker visited on 26 June 2018. His carer pointed out problems with the electrics. An electrician was at the house but there is no record of who arranged this. The electrician quoted over £500 to make the property safe. Mr Y wanted to stay at home, so he agreed for the work to be completed. An occupational therapist visited the same day. They noted Mr Y was concerned about abuse he received from his family because he wanted to be in control of his own money.
33. The Council responded to Mrs X complaint about the care provider on 29 June 2018. It said it could not investigate the complaint because Mr Y had capacity and would need to complain himself.
34. The police and ambulance service attended Mr Y’s home on 4 July 2018 after concerns about someone breaking in. Paramedics took Mr Y to hospital due to low blood sugar levels. Mr Y’s social worker attended and noted more electrical works were needed at a further cost of £800. She contacted the trusted trader service, who confirmed there were no concerns about the electrician or the quotes. Mr Y’s social worker then contacted the electrician, who said the property had been made safe, but more work was needed to fix the problem. This would cost about £2,000. Mr Y’s social worker found a possible placement for Mr Y at a care home so the work could be carried out. The Council looked at financial support for the electrical work, but the only option was a loan and a charge against the house. This was not considered suitable.
35. Mr Y’s social worker visited him in hospital on 5 July 2018. She told him about the option of a care home. Mr Y initially wanted to return home but later agreed to a short-term placement at Broadlands Park.
36. Mr Y was re-admitted to hospital on 9 July 2018 due to concerns about his blood sugar levels. A safeguarding concern was raised by the Council because Mr Y was discharged to the care home without the home being told he had diabetes and needed to take insulin. While in hospital, Mr Y said he wanted to go home. The Council arranged for Mr Y’s carers to be re-instated the next day. Mr Y agreed for the electrical work to be carried out and agreed to the cost.
37. The Council completed safeguarding strategy discussions on 3 August 2018. A mental capacity assessment was not needed. The Council considered Mr Y had capacity relating to his care needs, finances, and anything else. Mr Y was consulted but was angry about what happened and did not want to discuss it. The Council’s investigation found the hospital thought Mr Y’s insulin had been stopped. This was the information available on health systems. The Council considered this was a one-off error and there was no ongoing risk.
38. A neighbour contacted the Council with concerns about Mr Y on 21 August 2018. Mr Y had been shouting from his window that he was locked in. He was then found on the floor by workmen. Mr Y appeared distressed and the Council told the neighbour to call an ambulance.
39. Mrs X telephoned the Council with the same concerns about Mr Y. The Council told Mrs X it would keep her updated.
40. Paramedics then called the Council as they were concerned Mr Y’s blood sugar levels were low. Paramedics confirmed they considered Mr Y had mental capacity to make decisions and may refuse to go with them. The Council telephoned Mrs X with an update.
41. Mr Y was not taken to hospital. Instead, the Council arranged to visit Mr Y that evening to check on him. On arrival at about 9pm, Mr X was in bed asleep.
42. The Council contacted the care provider on 22 August 2018 for an update. The care provider confirmed there were no further concerns.
43. On 29 August 2018, the care provider gave the Council notice of its intention to end Mr Y’s care package.
44. A neighbour called the NHS 111 non-emergency number on 1 September 2018 with concerns about Mr Y. An ambulance was called, and Mr Y was taken to hospital.
45. The care provider visited Mr Y on 3 September, and said he appeared fine. Mr Y’s social worker visited him later the same day. He had not been given insulin since returning home the day before. The social worker contacted Mr Y’s district nurse to arrange this urgently.
46. Mr Y’s social worker visited him again on 6 September to tell him his care with Nightingale was coming to an and to discuss arranging a new care provider. Mr Y wanted to consider residential care instead. He thought it was the best option. His social worker explained the financial impact and what it could mean for his house. Mr Y gave his social worker permission to discuss the sale of his home with Mrs X.
47. Mr Y’s social worker visited Mrs X to tell her about Mr Y’s intentions. Mrs X agreed to support him.
48. The Council found a vacancy for Mr Y at Avery Lodge care home. His social worker visited him to discuss this on 13 September 2018. Mr Y was sad Mrs X had not been in touch with him.
49. Mr Y’s social worker then visited Mrs X to update her. Mrs X said she did not want to visit Mr Y on her own after the care provider made allegations about her financially abusing him.
50. The Council assessed Mr Y’s needs on 17 September 2018. This was because Mr Y decided his care arrangements were difficult and not working without support from his family. Mr Y had been found wandering the street by neighbours and was looking for reassurance and company. Mr Y wanted to go into residential care. The assessor recorded Mr Y had capacity but is sometimes confused by the time he spends alone and his inability to see.
51. Mr Y moved into Avery Lodge care home on 20 September 2018.
52. The Council contacted Mrs X on 26 November 2018 to tell her a financial assessment had been arranged for Mr Y on 3 December 2018. Mrs X told the Council Mr Y had fallen and fractured his hip. He was in hospital but was due to be discharged that day.
53. The Council contacted Avery Lodge on 3 December. The home had concerns about Mr Y. He still appeared unwell and was shouting and calling out.
54. Avery Lodge contacted the Council on 10 December. It was struggling to meet Mr Y’s needs. His GP suggested he may need nursing care. The Council agreed to arrange a nursing needs assessment.
55. Mr Y’s social worker contacted Avery Lodge for an update on 19 December. The home advised Mr Y had been taken to hospital where he was diagnosed with dementia. He was due to return to the home shortly.
56. The Council assessed Mr Y while he was in hospital on 27 December 2018. He was admitted after a fall, change in behaviour, and hallucinations. He was diagnosed with vascular dementia but could communicate his needs. Mr Y needed anti-psychotic medication as well as his insulin. The care home where he was living could no longer meet his needs. Mr Y’s social worker made a continuing healthcare (CHC) referral to the NHS. The Council said Mrs X was aware of the situation.
57. Following Mr Y’s CHC checklist, it was decided he needed nursing care. A place was arranged at Harleston House nursing home, starting from 24 January 2019.
58. At the Council’s request, Mrs X completed a financial declaration form for Mr Y on 12 February 2019. She gave details of Mr Y’s pension, benefits, savings, mortgage, and the value of his home. She confirmed she had jointly owned the home since Mr Y gifted half of it to her in August 2002.
59. The Council wrote to Mrs X on 14 February 2019 with details of Mr Y’s financial assessment regarding Avery Lodge. It said Mr Y was required to contribute to the cost of his residential care between 20 September and 12 December 2018. From 13 December to 30 December Mr Y had to pay the full cost of his residential care due to the value of his home.
60. Mrs X wrote to the Council on 19 February 2019. She said neither she nor Mr Y knew his care at Avery Lodge was permanent. They thought it was temporary respite care and he had spent the last 8 weeks in hospital. She asked for copies of the relevant agreements confirming Mr Y was in permanent residential care.
61. The Council replied on 22 February 2019. It said Mr Y’s contract was always for long term residential care ever since he was admitted to Avery Lodge. It advised Mrs X to contact social services for details.
62. Mrs X complained to the Council on 21 May 2019, after Mr Y had passed away. She was unhappy with Mr Y’s care and said the Council ignored the family’s concerns going back 10 years. Specifically, she said:
• The Council failed to act on her concerns about Mr Y’s capacity.
• She tried to raise issues about Mr Y’s carers to social services, but her concerns were dismissed.
• She repeatedly asked social services about allegations made about her but they would not confirm the situation.
• The Council did not inform her when Mr Y was in hospital or respite care.
• Mr Y had to be taken back to hospital as he was not given his insulin.
• The Council told her Mr Y was going into Avery Lodge temporarily, not permanently.
• Electrical works carried out at Mr Y’s home were poor quality and too expensive.
63. The Council responded on 8 October 2019. It tried to clarify what took place since Mrs X’s first complaint in June 2018 and tried to reassure her that it did make enquiries about her allegations. It did not comment on any of the earlier concerns. It also confirmed it did not formally investigate Mrs X about financial abuse of her father as it did not deem this necessary. It acknowledged this should have been confirmed to her. The Council sought £5,675.26 from Mr Y’s estate for his care charges.
64. Mrs X was unhappy with the Council’s response, which she said was vague and incomplete. She said the Council did not comment on her video footage of the carer. She said the video showed Mr Y's confusion and diminishing capacity. She asked for copies of Mr Y’s care records and financial assessments. She also raised concerns about the cost of electrical work at Mr Y’s home.
65. The Council sent a further complaint response on 15 November 2019. It said Mr Y had capacity to deal with his affairs and it did not liaise with Mrs X earlier because Mr Y did not want it to. It said he was aware of the electrical work and had the capacity to agree to it. The Council suggested Mrs X contact the care providers for records as it could not release them. It said Mr Y was financially assessed in line with charging policies and Mrs X, as executor of Mr Y’s will, was responsible for settling outstanding debts.
66. Mrs X wrote back to the Council on 19 November 2019. She:
• Said the Council had not commented about Mr Y’s capacity.
• Asked for records of Mr Y saying he did not want the Council to contact her.
• Questioned how her father was physically able to arrange an electrician.
• Said Mr Y did not have a financial assessment and the Council failed to explain how this was established.
67. The Council sent its final complaint response on 30 December 2019. It acknowledged it made two procedural errors. Firstly, it should have informed its care provider quality assurance team when Mrs X complained in May 2018. However, it said Mr Y was happy with his care from the provider at that stage. The carer Mrs X complained about left the care provider, and Mr Y went into residential care shortly after.
68. Secondly, it may not have considered the Mental Capacity Code of Practice point 4.53 when Mrs X raised concerns about Mr Y’s mental health. However, it said it was the view of Mr Y’s allocated worker that Mr Y did not need a mental capacity assessment.
69. The Council said it reviewed why Mr Y was discharged from hospital without insulin and this was an error by the NHS.
70. Mrs X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 8 January 2020 because she did not feel her father was adequately cared for. Her concerns were ignored by the Council. She suffered emotional distress and wanted answers so she can move on.

Response to my enquiries

71. The Council told me it visited Mr Y to discuss Mrs X’s concerns when she complained in June 2018. Mr Y had no concerns and wanted to continue to receive support from the care provider.
72. Mrs X also complained to the care provider, who provided the Council with a copy of their complaint response. The Council was satisfied with the response from the care provider. It told Mrs X that Mr Y had capacity and should contact the Council direct if he had concerns.
73. The Council said it did not complete a capacity assessment for Mr Y when Mrs X suspected his capacity was diminishing. Mr Y’s allocated worker visited him, along with a community nurse, and his regular carer. They all agreed Mr Y had capacity to decide to remain at home and about his finances. Mr Y’s allocated worker decided an assessment was not required, given Mr Y’s presentation at the time.
74. The Council did not carry out formal investigations about potential financial abuse by Mrs X. It said it is possible Mrs X was not told about this decision because she was no longer supporting Mr Y at the time. The Council said it had apologised to Mrs X for this failure.

Back to top

Analysis

Care and support

75. The Council would not respond to Mrs X about some of the concerns she raised. However, on the evidence seen, it clearly took action and supported Mr Y to make choices about his care.
76. The Council was aware of the dispute between Mrs X and Mr Y’s carers and it was aware of the action the care provider took. The Council carried out a re-assessment of Mr Y’s needs to get his input and see if the current support was working. Mr Y seemed happy with the care provider and was also keen to have more independence.
77. When Mr Y’s neighbours reported he was distressed or walking in the street, the Council made sure Mr Y had a welfare check and that his social worker visited him. The Council also conducted a safeguarding enquiry when Mr Y was not given insulin when he came out of hospital.
78. Mr Y’s social worker supported him to review his home environment and ask for changes, such as to his shower and bed. Mr Y was also helped to source a new washing machine and helped with his banking. A contentious issue for Mrs X is the electrical work carried out at Mr Y’s home. On the evidence seen, Mr Y’s social worker took steps to verify the electrician and the quotes. Mr Y understood the price. He was not happy with it but was willing to pay so that he could go home. The Council looked at alternative means to fund the work but found nothing suitable.
79. On the evidence seen, the Council was not at fault in the way it cared for and supported Mr Y.
80. I consider the care provider demonstrated to the Council that it investigated Mrs X’s complaint and gave a constructive first response to her. However, I found the tone of the second complaint response too defensive. It also used phrases which I don’t consider were appropriate for a complaint response, such as referring to the family member’s behaviour as ‘vile’ and ‘disgusting’, and accusing Mrs X of ‘conveniently’ not supplying all video evidence. I consider that was unprofessional and inflammatory. It was also counterproductive in resolving the issues and probably contributed to the decline in Mrs X’s trust. The Council saw the complaint responses and should have raised this with the care provider.

Capacity

81. I have reviewed the Council’s records for Mr Y. The issue of his capacity has been considered since 2012. In November 2013, Mr Y’s doctor assessed him as having capacity regarding his lifestyle choices and living environment.
82. Following Mrs X’s report to the Council on 31 May 2018 about the actions of Mr Y’s carers, the Council had a safeguarding consultation to address whether Mr Y had capacity to decide what he eats. His social worker, a district nurse, and Mr Y’s regular carer thought he had capacity.
83. On 21 August 2018, the Council spoke to a paramedic who assessed Mr Y. They considered Mr Y had capacity to decide if he went to hospital or remained at home.
84. On the evidence seen, the Council did consider Mrs X’s concerns. It decided Mr Y had capacity. This view was shared by others involved in Mr Y’s care.
85. The Council acknowledged it may not have considered point 4.53 from the code of practice, considering Mrs X’s views differed from the views of Mr Y’s social worker and carers. It would have been helpful in this situation if the Council had carried out a formal mental capacity assessment, or discussed one with Mr Y. However, it remains the case that, prior to going into residential care, all those involved in Mr Y’s care thought he had capacity. The Council must start with the presumption that Mr Y had capacity and it must hold a reasonable belief Mr Y lacked capacity before carrying out a mental capacity assessment. I therefore do not consider there is enough evidence to say the Council was at fault.

Involving the family in decisions

86. Mrs X was very unhappy with the actions of a carer, and with the response she got from the care provider. She chose not to be involved in Mr Y’s care. It is not the Council’s role to resolve disputes, but to listen to and act on the wishes of the service user.
87. The Council was satisfied Mr Y had capacity and its duty was to him, as the service user. It had to respect his wishes, which were to remain independent with his finances and choose what care he wanted to receive. The evidence I have seen shows the Council involved Mr Y in his assessments, allowed him to express what he wanted, and acted on his wishes.
88. I appreciate Mrs X wanted to be informed about what happened to Mr Y, particularly on the occasions he was taken to hospital. However, I cannot say the Council had a duty or responsibility to do so. The evidence I have seen shows the Council did take note, and action, when Mrs X reported concerns. It discussed things with Mr Y and supported his choices.
89. Mrs X asked the Council for evidence Mr Y said he did not want her involved in decisions. I have not seen any evidence to suggest this. However, I have also not seen evidence Mr Y asked the Council to involve Mrs X, prior to his decision to go into residential care.

Financial assessments

90. The Council carried out a financial assessment for Mr Y in April 2018. The assessment detailed Mr Y’s benefits, pension, and savings. At this stage, Mr Y was receiving care in his home.
91. Mr Y went into residential care on 20 September 2018. The Council started the process for Mr Y’s financial assessment to consider his contribution to the cost of residential care in November 2018. Unfortunately, a face to face assessment did not take place because Mr Y had to go into hospital. In February 2019, the Council completed its assessment for Mr Y. This was based on a declaration form provided by Mrs X, and on previous evidence and calculations. It included details of Mr Y’s home, which he jointly owned with Mrs X after he made the decision to gift half of the house to her in August 2002.
92. As part of a financial assessment for residential care, the Council is entitled to consider the value of assets including a person’s home. Mrs X said the home she and Mr Y jointly owned was worth £120,000. Even by considering only half the value of the home, Mr X would be above the threshold of £23,250 and would be classed as a self-funder.
93. Mrs X thought Mr Y was going into Avery Lodge on a temporary basis. That was not the case. Mr Y asked the Council to be placed in permanent residential care. The records I have seen show Mr Y told the Council he wanted to go into residential care. He thought it was the best place for his care and social needs. This was not temporary. He discussed selling his home with the Council, and the Council was made aware Mrs X jointly owned the house. The Council told Mrs X about Mr Y’s decision and Mrs X agreed to support him.
94. I have not seen evidence the Council’s financial assessments were flawed. It was entitled to charge Mr Y for being in permanent residential care. It was also entitled to include the value of Mr Y’s home in its most recent assessment.

Financial abuse allegations

95. In its complaint response, the Council accepted it should have told Mrs X it was not investigating her. The evidence I have seen shows Mr Y’s social worker did not consider Mrs X was financially abusing Mr Y. The Council should have communicated this to Mrs X. She contacted the Council to ask if it was investigating her, and she had a right to know the outcome. Mrs X did not feel comfortable visiting Mr Y while the allegations were hanging over her. This caused Mrs X avoidable distress. That is her injustice.

Agreed action

96. Within four weeks of my final decision the Council will:
• Apologise to Mrs X for not telling her she was not being investigated for financial abuse of Mr Y.
• Pay Mrs X £100 to recognise the avoidable distress its failure caused.

Back to top

Final decision

97. I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault in the way it cared for and supported Mr Y. The Council was at fault for not telling Mrs X the outcome of financial abuse allegations made about her.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman