Summary: Mr X complains the Council decided without his involvement that it would place his disabled son, P, in residential care. However, that did not happen, and P is now settled in a day service placement of his parents’ choice, funded through the NHS. There is no evidence that P or his family suffered any injustice as a result of this or Mr X’s other concern, that he was treated differently because he had complained, and so the investigation is now closed.

The complaint

1. Mr X, as I shall call him, complains that he recently discovered (through a Subject Access Request, or SAR) that the Council had decided in 2022 his disabled son’s behaviour could no longer be managed in day care and he should be moved to a residential placement. He says he was treated unfavourably because he had complained.

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’.
3. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information provided by Mr X and by the Council. I spoke to Mr X. Both Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement and I considered their comments before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

6. The Care Act 2014 gives councils a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan (or a support plan for a carer). The care and support plan should consider what needs the person has, what they want to achieve, what they can do by themselves or with existing support and what care and support may be available in the local area.
7. Where it appears a person may be eligible for NHS Continuing Healthcare (NHS CHC), councils must notify the relevant integrated care system (ICS). NHS CHC is a package of ongoing care arranged and funded solely by the NHS where the individual has been found to have a ‘primary health need’ as set out in the National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS-Funded Nursing Care. Such care is provided to people aged 18 years or over, to meet needs arising from disability, accident or illness.

What happened

8. Mr X’s son P is an adult with profound disabilities. He attended a day service, funded by the Council through his personal budget, for some time. Mr X says in 2022 the Council told him with two weeks’ notice that P could no longer attend the day service.
9. Mr X found a different placement for P where he has settled. P is now funded through NHS CHC funding.
10. Mr X made a SAR in 2023. He discovered from reading P’s records that during a multidisciplinary meeting in April 2022, a decision was taken that P’s behaviour could no longer be managed in a day service setting and he should be moved to a residential placement. Mr X says there was no consultation with him about this. He says when he requested the minutes of the MDT meeting he was told there were no minutes. He adds that the staff at P’s day service said there was no evidence of violent behaviour.
11. The Council wrote to Mr X when he complained he had not been shown the minutes of the meeting. It said its usual practice was to have a note-taker at such meetings but on this occasion there had not been one available. It said a note of the discission was attached to P’s case records instead.
12. The Council also said, in response to some concerns Mr X raised about the way his complaints had been handled, that “We have a policy to treat all complaints on their merits, but it is important that we consider the context of all complaints. This is especially true where a customer might have ongoing issues with a service, or multiple services, and appropriate awareness of a customer complaint is important when responding to issues raised.”
13. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman. He said he was worried that if P required Council funding in the future, the Council would make a similar decision without consultation. He felt he had been treated differently because of his previous complaints. He says he believes the Council would have arranged a residential placement had it not been for one member of staff who arranged transport to day services first.

Analysis

14. Mr X was understandably concerned when he saw that a residential placement had been considered for P, and he as P’s parent had not been involved in the discussion.
15. However, as P did not move to a residential placement, and is now settled in a day service funded through the NHS, I do not consider there is sufficient evidence of injustice to pursue the matter. I note his belief about what would have happened but there is no evidence that was the case.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I have closed this investigation on the basis that P did not suffer injustice as a result of the Council’s actions.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman