Summary: The Ombudsman should not pursue this complaint about Mrs C’s move between care homes because there is insufficient evidence the Council’s alleged faults caused significant injustice so an investigation is not warranted.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains about the Council’s handling of various matters related to her mother, Mrs C’s, move from a care home in the Council’s area to a home elsewhere. Mrs B states the Council’s actions caused difficulties for the family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mrs B provided and copies of her complaints correspondence with the Council, which I obtained from the Council. I gave Mrs B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs B’s mother, Mrs C, is physically frail and has dementia. Mrs C cannot make her own decisions about where she should live. She lived a care home in the Council’s area (‘Home X’). Mrs C’s placement did not involve the Council.
6. Mrs B and her family wanted to move Mrs C to a care home elsewhere in the country (‘Home Y’). This was so Mrs C would be near another relative but the family also felt a sense of urgency about the move because of concerns about the standard of care in Home X. The family arranged with Home Y that Mrs C would move there on a particular date (for confidentiality reasons, I shall not give the date or other details that might identify those involved).
7. The Council then became involved and said the move should only go ahead once it was satisfied the move was in Mrs C’s best interests. A few weeks after Council became involved, the move went ahead on the date the family had planned.
8. Mrs B is dissatisfied with the Council’s involvement and actions. As explained above, I must first consider whether the actions Mrs B complains of caused a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman.

Actions related to deprivation of liberty safeguards (DOLS)

9. Thirteen months before the move to Home Y, Mrs B and Home X asked the Council to assess Mrs C’s mental capacity as part of the Council’s responsibility for authorising deprivation of liberty in care homes. Mrs B assumed the Council had acted promptly on the request. In fact, the Council added this request to a waiting list, it says because it did not regard the request as urgent. The Council then conducted the assessment and DOLS authorisation two weeks before Mrs C left Home X. Mrs B is dissatisfied this did not happen sooner.
10. There is no evidence suggesting the delay in itself significantly disadvantaged Mrs C in practical terms while she was in Home X. Nor, from the evidence I have seen, does there appear to be reason to believe that, had the Council resolved the DOLS matter sooner, the other points the Council sought to deal with in the couple of weeks before Mrs C’s move would have concluded significantly earlier. This is especially so as the family was able to move Mrs C on the date they had wanted. I appreciate Mrs C was frustrated to find the DOLS matter outstanding. However, I do not consider the time taken caused anyone a significant enough injustice to warrant the Ombudsman considering this point further.

The Council’s actions related to whether Mrs B should move to Home Y

11. Mrs B believed any concerns the Council might have were unjustified as Mrs C’s family was acting in her best interests. Mrs B’s impression was the Council was putting obstacles in the way of the move though the Council states it did not oppose the move in principle. Mrs B was dissatisfied with the Council’s stance on overseeing a ‘best interests’ decision-making process and with some references Council staff made to the Court of Protection’s possible role.
12. The Council held a best interests meeting a week before Mrs C’s move. Mrs B is unhappy with the conduct of the meeting and with some comments in the meeting and in her other dealings with the Council around then. The Council does not accept there was fault in its overall approach although it has apologised for any upset caused by some comments.
13. Mrs B feared the process the Council was requiring would delay Mrs C’s move, leave Mrs C getting unsuitable care in Home X and cost more as they would have to pay two sets of care home fees to hold Mrs C’s place in Home Y. However, the move still went ahead on the date the family had arranged. So the Council’s involvement did not cause a significant injustice to Mrs C and the family in practical terms.
14. Mrs B has also referred to uncertainty and upset from the Council’s actions during that time and she devoted time and energy to dealing with the Council. Mrs B suggests if she had not argued her position strongly, Mrs C’s move might not have gone ahead on the planned date. I note all these points and I appreciate this was a difficult time for Mrs B. I also note the Council’s apology. However, in the circumstances, I do not consider any uncertainty, upset or time and effort spent dealing with the Council are significant enough injustices in themselves to warrant the Ombudsman pursuing the matter.

The arrangements for transporting Mrs C to Home Y

15. The Council expressed concern at the plan to transport Mrs C a long distance by car and to transfer her to and from the car using a slide board. It suggested an occupational therapist (OT) should assess this. That assessment resulted in recommendations against using a slide board and private car. Mrs C instead moved using a powered stand-aid for transfers and a private ambulance. Mrs B says she only agreed this under duress, fearing delay otherwise. She was not happy with Mrs C travelling in an unfamiliar vehicle with people she did not know.
16. The Council had nothing to gain by supporting a particular form of transfer or vehicle. Its recommendations appear to be appropriate professional judgements based on assessing Mrs C. As there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached this position, I cannot criticise it, as paragraph 3 explained.
17. Mrs B is also dissatisfied with a proposal Mrs C should travel overnight in case of heavy daytime traffic. Mrs B and the Council give different accounts of whether the Council relayed this as a suggestion from the ambulance provider or maintained this as the Council’s own view until Mrs C cited previous concerns about the NHS moving dementia patients at night. Mrs B states arguing against the Council was stressful. In the event, Mrs C did not move to Home Y at night.
18. I note Mrs B’s concerns. However, as Mrs C was not in fact transported overnight, I do not consider this part of the complaint caused a significant enough injustice for the Ombudsman to pursue further.

Back to top

Final decision

19. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence the Council’s alleged faults caused a significant injustice warranting investigation. Therefore we need not go on to consider if the Council was at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman