Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to the care and support of her son. This is because the law does not allow us to investigate matters that were considered as part of court proceedings. We will not investigate the remaining matters for the reasons explained in this statement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I will call Mrs Y, says the Council:
• failed properly to assess her son’s finances for charging purposes and disability related expenditure which has caused financial loss;
• removed eligibility for transport and an escort without proper consideration;
• failed to properly process a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLs);
• completed a flawed Mental Capacity Assessment (MCA);
• completed a flawed Care Act assessment which contained false and misleading information;
• incorrectly judged her to be an unsuitable person to act on her son’s behalf.
• did not properly respond to her Subject Access Request (SAR);
• opened a safeguarding enquiry without basis and allowed this to continue for 18 months;
• acted unprofessionally and sometimes in an unacceptable or abusive manner;
• failed to action a Continuing Healthcare (CHC) checklist; and
• did not properly deal with her complaint.

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 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. This section provides a broad overview of the events leading to Mrs Y’s complaint. It is not intended to set out a full chronology of everything Mrs Y and her son have experienced since 2021.
8. Mrs Y is a carer for her adult son, Mr W, who has disabilities. As part of her caring role, she also acts as Mr W’s deputy, which means she is authorised to make certain decisions on his behalf and in his best interests.
9. Following some concerns about the ability of Mrs Y to act as Mr W’s deputy, the Council applied to the Court of Protection (CoP) in 2023 seeking an order to replace Mrs Y with a court appointed deputy. The CoP was also asked to consider various other matters regarding Mr W, such as where he should live on a long-term basis and the care he should receive.
10. As part of the proceedings, the CoP ordered completion of a report under Section 49 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The purpose of the report was to help the courts decide whether Mr W had capacity to make decisions in specific areas, what their best interests are and to help inform decisions about care and residency. When completing the report, the author was authorised to examine Mr W’s care assessments, support plans and relevant health and social care records.
11. The CoP also ordered the Council to provide various documentary evidence, including updates on Mr W’s disability related expenditure assessment (DREA) and details of any restrictions on his liberty.
12. In June 2024 the CoP noted, “…the applicant confirming via email on 19 June 2024 that it will continue to provide transport payments for [Mr W] to continue attending his services and that the transport payments will be backdated to cover the period from 29 April 2025 during which time [Mr W] was not receiving this funding despite no review having been undertaken”.
13. As part of the proceedings, all parties attended a ‘roundtable’ meeting in March 2025, during which the following key issues were discussed.
• In February 2025 a Continuing Healthcare (CHC) checklist referral was completed for Mr W, but he was found to be ineligible for CHC funding.
• The Council’s liaison with health services regarding ongoing funding for Mr W to receive a transport escort in accordance with the opinion of his consultant neurologist. The Council agreed to fund the escort until such time the funding is taken over by health.
• Mr W is subject to restrictions which amount to a deprivation of liberty in his different care environments.
14. The CoP issued its final order in April 2025. In summary, this order covered the following points.
• The issue of Mr W’s residency is resolved by agreement. He will continue to reside in the care of Mrs Y until it would be in his best interests to move to a more independent environment such as supported living. The Council will make a fresh application to the court at that time.
• Mr W will continue to receive the support as outlined in the 24 March 2024 care and support plan.
• Mr W’s neurologist advises that he needs an escort when travelling or using taxi services as a safeguarding measure.
• There will be no further completion of CHC checklists unless there is a significant change in Mr W’s care needs.
• The Council’s safeguarding enquiry into finances has concluded and is closed. The safeguarding enquiry relating to health has not concluded.
• Mrs Y is liaising with the relevant teams at the Council to arrange payment of the debt owed by Mr W towards his assessed care contribution.
• The DREA is still awaiting review by the relevant team, but they have a backlog. The outcome of that review may reduce the debt owed by Mr W.
• Parties agree the arrangements for Mr W at his home, day centre and respite placement are restrictions which amount to a deprivation of liberty. The restrictions are necessary and proportionate to the identified needs and are the least restrictive measures.
15. Following conclusion of the proceedings, Mrs Y complained to the LGSCO seeking an investigation into the maladministration of the matters she raises as summarised in paragraph one of this statement.

Our analysis

Matters considered by the Court

16. I have carefully considered the complaint and the information provided. Mrs Y says the Court of Protection focused on welfare matters rather than maladministration by the Council. However, I must first decide whether the issues raised in Mrs Y’s complaint have already been considered, or could have been considered, by a court. This is because the law prevents us from investigating matters a court has considered or could have considered, even if the court did not assess fault or provide a remedy.
17. It is my view the Court considered the central issues of Mrs Y’s complaint. It ordered a mental capacity assessment and made its own findings about Mr W’s capacity under the Mental Capacity Act. Although Mrs Y disputes the Council’s earlier assessment, the Court reached its own conclusions. I cannot revisit the earlier assessment without risking conflict with the Court’s decision.
18. The Court also considered the key welfare matters raised in the complaint: where Mr W should live, his care arrangements, transport and escort needs, and the deprivation of his liberty. It authorised these arrangements as being in his best interests. These are the same matters Mrs Y presents as safeguarding and care failures. As the Court has already addressed them, they fall outside of our jurisdiction.
19. The Court was also aware of the safeguarding concerns, which it acknowledged in the final order. It recorded that the financial safeguarding enquiry had concluded and that health-related safeguarding issues were ongoing. Although Mrs Y disagrees with how these enquiries were handled, they were within the scope of the Court proceedings and I cannot investigate them.
20. The Court also recorded the arrangements for charging, DRE and any outstanding debt, and confirmed that Mr W lacks capacity to manage his finances. Investigating these issues would overlap with matters already considered by the Court.
21. Finally, concerns about misrepresentation, false accusations and the Council’s challenge to Mrs Y’s deputyship were all matters that arose within the context of the Court proceedings. Investigating these issues now would require us to revisit the core matters that were before the Court and would risk questioning the basis on which the Court reached its conclusions.

Remaining issues

22. I have considered whether to investigate the remaining issues, including complaint handling, delays, the SAR, and concerns about staff behaviour. These were not part of the Court’s consideration.
23. The complaint handling which Mrs Y refers to was an action taken in connection with matters that I am unable to investigate because they fall outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. In these circumstances, and in line with our powers under the Local Government Act 1974, I have decided not to investigate the Council’s handing of the complaint about matters which the court has already considered.
24. Subject access issues are usually considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). I understand from the information provided that Mrs Y has already approached the ICO. This is the appropriate course of action for Mrs Y to pursue if she has concerns about her access to information.
25. Based on the information seen, Mrs Y’s concerns about the actions of staff and their conduct form part of her wider allegations about the Council’s conduct, which are closely connected to the matters already considered by the Court. In my view, these issues are not separable from the wider proceedings.
26. Finally, Mrs Y’s allegations about individual instances of rudeness or unprofessional behaviour are disputed by the officers involved, who have provided a different account of events. We have seen no independent evidence that would allow us to determine what occurred on the balance of probabilities. Given this, and the fact that the substantive matters are outside our jurisdiction, I am not satisfied that further investigation would be likely to achieve a meaningful outcome.

Back to top

Decision

27. I have discontinued our investigation into Mrs Y’s complaint for the reasons explained in this decision statement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman