Summary: There was no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision not to allow contact between Ms X and Y.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council delayed dealing with her request for contact with her adult child Y. She says this has caused her and her family significant distress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. Miss X approached the Council in 2023 and was told a social worker would be in touch but this did not happen. She complained to the Council about this in 2025. As I have explained at paragraph 3, we will not investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. It was open to Ms X to come to us at that time if she had concerns about the lack of response from the social worker in 2023. There are no good reasons to consider this now. I have considered what has happened between April 2025 when Ms X complained to the Council and July 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Miss X 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

Relevant Law and Guidance

8. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is the framework for acting and deciding for people who lack the mental capacity to make particular decisions for themselves. The Act (and the Code of Practice 2007) describes the steps a person should take when dealing with someone who may lack capacity to make decisions for themselves. It describes when to assess a person’s capacity to make a decision, how to do this, and how to make a decision on behalf of somebody who cannot do so.
9. The council must assess someone’s ability to make a decision when that person’s capacity is in doubt. How it assesses capacity may vary depending on the complexity of the decision.
10. A key principle of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is that any act done for, or any decision made on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be in that person’s best interests.
11. If there is a conflict about what is in a person’s best interests, and all efforts to resolve the dispute have failed, the Court of Protection might need to decide what is in the person’s best interests.

What happened

12. The following is a summary of the main events relevant to the complaint.
13. Ms X’s adult child Y was placed in long term foster care when she was very young. Y currently lives in supported accommodation.
14. Ms X contacted the Council in April 2025 to ask if she could visit Y. She complained the Council had not responded to requests for contact she had made since 2023.
15. The Council told Ms X it would allocate a social worker to follow up Ms X’s request and to explore whether Y could consent to the request.
16. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint in early May 2025. It accepted a social worker had not responded to Ms X’s request of April 2023 to meet with Y. It apologised for this. It said it had no further records of Ms X contacting the social worker. It confirmed it had allocated a social worker to progress her request. The records show a social worker tried to call Ms X several times but the call was not answered and there was no option to leave a voicemail.
17. Ms X contacted the Council again in late May 2025. She said she was awaiting contact from a social worker but her phone would not accept withheld numbers. The social worker emailed Ms X and advised they needed to be mindful how they approached this and it may require a mental capacity assessment. Ms X responded that she was open to a structured supervised reintroduction. Ms X advised she was happy to wait for a mental capacity assessment.
18. The social worker spoke with Ms X on the telephone. The notes record the social worker explained they would conduct a review with Y. The social worker noted they discussed indirect contact including photos and letters but they advised Ms X that Y was an adult and had the choice as to whether they wanted contact. The social worker noted they explained their job was to support Y and to identify Y’s wishes and needs and if Ms X was not happy with the outcome, she could consider legal proceedings.
19. In mid-June 2025 Ms X contacted the Council and Y’s supported accommodation, asking for it to progress the request for contact, otherwise she would proceed with formal legal action. The Council responded to advise Ms X it was reviewing this, but it needed to ensure Y’s wishes were considered. It said contact with family had affected Y’s health and well-being in the past and it needed to be mindful of how it approached the request.
20. Later that month, the Council completed Y’s mental capacity assessment and following this made a best interests decision not to allow contact at this time. It noted this position should be periodically reviewed based on changes in Y’s well-being and cognitive function.
21. It contacted Ms X and advised her of the decision not to agree to contact. It advised Ms X to seek legal advice if she disagreed with the decision.

Findings

22. The Council responded to Ms X’s contact request appropriately and there is no evidence of significant delay in its actions during the period I investigated. The records show the social worker correctly advised Ms X the situation would depend on a mental capacity assessment, Y’s wishes and feelings and Y’s best interests.
23. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong. The Council followed the principles of the mental capacity act in deciding contact with Y was not in Y’s best interest at this time. There was no evidence of fault in how it reached that decision.
24. As the Council has already advised, if Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision it is open to her to seek legal advice. Matters regarding contact are best decided by the Court of Protection.

Back to top

Decision

25. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman