Summary: Ms B complained the Council did not help to facilitate a move for her mother, Mrs C, from a residential care home back to her family home. We find the Council at fault for failing to ensure Mrs C’s stay at the care home was subject to authorisation under the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards. There were also failings in its communications; in some of the care Mrs C received at the care home and in its complaint handling. These faults caused Ms B distress. The Council accepts these findings. At the end of this statement, we set out action it has agreed to take remedy that injustice and improve its services.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant ‘Ms B’. She complains the Council failed to help facilitate a move for her mother (whom I have called Mrs C) from a residential care home, back to her family home, before her death in April 2021. Linked to this complaint, Ms B says the Council failed for 15 months to authorise Ms B’s stay in the care home under the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards. Also, that it failed to undertake proper best interest decision making and did not properly explain the law to her around these matters. The residential care home referred to in this decision statement is the Hillgrove Residential Home (‘the care home’) managed by Mayflower Care Homes Limited (‘the Care Provider’).
2. Ms B believes that had the Council facilitated Mrs C’s move back to the family home she would have lived longer. Ms B says she would have ensured Mrs C received prompt medical attention during the weeks she was unwell before her death and would have noticed if she had not been drinking enough fluids. Ms B could not visit Mrs C in person due to restrictions on visiting resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Ms B says she has suffered distress because of the Council’s actions in this case and she wants it to learn lessons.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
4. We normally name care homes and other providers in our decision statements. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34H(8), as amended)
5. 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 the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. 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)
7. 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

8. Before issuing this decision statement I considered:

• Ms B’s written complaint to the Ombudsman and any supporting information she provided;
• correspondence sent to Ms B forming the Council’s response to her complaint and pre-dating our investigation;
• information provided to me by the Council in reply to my written enquiries;
• any relevant law or Government guidance referred to in the text below;
• relevant Ombudsman guidance including our published guidance on remedies to complaints.

9. Ms B and the Council were given a draft of this decision statement and invited to comment and / or provide any further evidence they considered relevant to the complaint. I took account of any responses before issuing this final decision.
10. There is an information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Care Quality Commission (CQC). Under the terms of that agreement, we will share this decision with CQC in advance of its publication on our website.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legal and administrative background

Mental Capacity considerations

11. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 sets out how and who will make decisions for people who lack the mental capacity to make specific decisions for themselves. The Act (and the Code of Practice 2007) describe the steps a person should take when dealing with someone who may lack capacity. It describes when to assess a person’s capacity, how to do this, and how to make a decision on behalf of somebody who cannot do so.
12. 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. A capacity assessment is specific to the decision being made at a specific time. When assessing somebody’s capacity, the assessor needs to find out the following:

• does the person have a general understanding of what decision they need to make and why they need to make it?
• does the person have a general understanding of the likely effects of making, or not making, this decision?
• is the person able to understand, retain, use, and weigh up the information relevant to this decision?
• can the person communicate their decision?

13. If there is a conflict about whether a person has capacity to make a decision, and all efforts to resolve this have failed, the Court of Protection can intervene. It can decide if a person has capacity to make a decision.

Best interest decision making

14. A key principle of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is that any act done for, or any decision made for a person who lacks capacity must be in that person’s best interests.
15. 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 can intervene. It can decide what is in the person’s best interests.

Court of Protection

16. The Court of Protection deals with decision-making for adults who may lack capacity to make specific decisions for themselves.
17. The Court of Protection may need to become involved in difficult cases or cases where there is disagreement which cannot be resolved in any other way. The Court of Protection:

• decides whether a person has capacity to make a particular decision for themselves;
• makes declarations, decisions or orders on financial or welfare matters affecting people who lack capacity to make such decisions;
• appoints deputies to make decisions for people lacking capacity to make those decisions;
• decides whether a Lasting Power of Attorney or Enduring Power of Attorney is valid; and
• removes deputies or attorneys who fail to carry out their duties.

Court-appointed Deputies

18. If there is a need for continuing decision-making powers and nobody holds a power of attorney, the Court of Protection may appoint a deputy to make decisions for a person. It will say what decisions the deputy has the authority to make on the person’s behalf.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS)

19. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards provide legal protection for individuals who lack mental capacity to consent to care or treatment and live in a care home, hospital or supported living accommodation. The DoLS protect people from being deprived of their liberty, unless it is in their best interests and there is no less restrictive alternative. The legislation sets out the procedure to follow to obtain authorisation to deprive an individual of their liberty. Without authorisation, the deprivation of liberty is unlawful. It is the responsibility of the care home or hospital to apply for authorisation. For people being cared for somewhere other than a care home or hospital, deprivation of liberty will only be lawful with an order from the Court of Protection.
20. The Supreme Court defined deprivation of liberty as when: “The person is under continuous supervision and control and is not free to leave, and the person lacks capacity to consent to these arrangements”.
21. Once there is or is likely to be a deprivation of liberty, it must be authorised under the DoLS scheme in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The ‘managing authority’ of the care home (the person registered or required to be registered by statute) must request authorisation from the ‘supervisory body’ (the council). There must be a request and an authorisation before a person is lawfully deprived of their liberty.
22. The application for authorisation should be made within 28 days. There are two types of authorisation: standard authorisations and urgent authorisations. The council makes standard authorisations.
23. On application, the supervisory body must carry out assessments. A minimum of two assessors, usually including a social worker or care worker, sometimes a psychiatrist or other medical person, must complete the assessments. They should do so within 21 days, or, before an urgent authorisation expires.

Timeline of events

24. In December 2019 the Council arranged for Mrs C to move from her family home to the care home. At the time, her husband, Mr C, was in nursing care. Mrs C had Alzheimer’s disease. Cameras installed in Mrs C’s home for her safety had recorded her wandering at night. She had also been knocking neighbours’ doors in the night in a confused state. Council social workers and Ms B did not feel it was safe for Mrs C to remain living at home, alone, at that time.
25. Within a week of this emergency short-term admission to care the Council carried out a mental capacity assessment with Mrs C. This was to determine if she had capacity to decide where her care needs should be met. The assessment found Mrs C did not have such capacity.
26. Around the same time, the care home submitted to the Council a request for authorisation of Mrs C’s placement under the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards. The Council considered the request a medium priority.
27. From the outset of Mrs C’s admission to the care home, social work notes recorded that Ms B wanted Mr and Mrs C to return home to live, subject to a package of care. Mrs C’s social worker recorded concerns about whether this would be safe or was realistic. In January 2020 Mrs C returned home for a planned stay of two weeks, supported by Ms B. Council notes say it considered this a ‘trial’ to see if Ms B could return home permanently supported by a package of home care.
28. Mrs C returned to the care home after only around one week. Ms B explained this was because of disruption caused by having adaptations made to Mrs C’s home. Specifically, she was installing a wet room downstairs to help with her parents’ return. The Council recorded that Ms B planned on leaving her employment and would live in the family home to support Mr and Mrs C. But this would be dependent on Ms B’s partner securing employment.
29. At the beginning of February 2020 Mr C died. Mrs C, supported by Ms B, returned home for a short time before the funeral. Council notes show Ms B had further discussions about supporting Mrs C at home around this time. They say the Council agreed she could receive a direct payment to fund a personal assistant (PA) to help support with Mrs C’s care needs. And at the beginning of March 2020 the Council, on behalf of Ms B, checked references provided by a potential PA. However, this potential appointment did not go any further. I note this coincided with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the country entering ‘lockdown’ restrictions.
30. In April 2020 Ms B approached the Council about support in completing forms for the Court of Protection. This was so Ms B could apply to become Mrs C’s Deputy. The Council social worker advised Ms B the Council would not help in completing the forms. They also noted Ms B’s plan to care for Mrs C at home had not made further progress. So they said they would arrange for Mrs C to move on to a long-term placement at the care home. The notes record the social worker saying, “when there is a robust plan in place, she [Mrs C] could return home in the future”.
31. Around this time the Council undertook a second mental capacity assessment with Mrs C – this time to decide if she could consent to receiving long-term care. The assessment found she could not. The assessment wrongly recorded there was a deprivation of liberty authorisation in place. The Council has said that it should have considered the question of authorisation at this time.
32. The Council next recorded a discussion about Mrs C potentially returning to the family home in August 2020. This followed a conversation between Ms B and the social worker. The case notes say Ms B still wanted to care for Mrs C at home but had put her plans on hold because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
33. In December 2020 Ms B sent an email saying she wanted Mrs C to return to the family home. Ms B said she was recruiting once more for a PA to support Mrs C.
34. Later that month the social worker arranged an online meeting with Ms B to discuss her plans. The social worker stopped the meeting when Ms B invited a friend to attend, without prior consent. The Council has said the social worker’s rationale was that Mrs C could not consent to the friend being present.
35. Shortly after, Ms B sent an email to the Council providing more detail of what she proposed. She said: “I am now going to pursue Court of Protection for Mum. Can you advise whether it is necessary to have this before I can put my plans in place?” Ms B also said: “we have to iron out the detail first, so I am not rushing into this arrangement - it has to be right”.
36. The social worker received advice to carry out a further mental capacity assessment with Mrs C and then to complete a best interest decision. Before the end of the month the social worker contacted Ms B and said after carrying out the mental capacity assessment, Mrs C had said she wanted to remain in the care home. Ms B questioned this. At which point the Council decided to carry out a further mental capacity assessment. Comments from the social worker around this time suggest an opposition to Ms B’s plans and refer to her “only considering her own needs” (i.e. not those of Mrs C). The social worker noted their view that Mrs C had settled in the care home and recorded how much care she received there.
37. By the end of January 2021, the Council had re-prioritised the deprivation of liberty authorisation request as high. It says this was because it now understood Ms B did not want Mrs C to remain in the care home. Then, at the beginning of February, a further mental capacity assessment found Mrs C did not have capacity to decide whether she should return home to receive care or remain in the care home.
38. In mid-February 2021 the Council authorised Mrs C remaining at the care home under the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards for a further six months. Ms B went on to appeal this.
39. Around the same time the Council also advised Ms B that she would need to become Ms B’s Deputy before Mrs C could move to the family home. The Council record says it would then take a best interest decision and “wrap around care and support should be planned for a safe return home for [Mrs C] if [Ms B’s] powers are granted [..] by COP [Court of Protection]”.
40. During March 2021, following Ms B’s appeal, the Council amended the deprivation of liberty authorisation for Ms B, shortening it by two months. This was to enable further exploration of whether Mrs C could return home. It appointed a new social worker to the case. They undertook a visit to the family home to check on the facilities, noting the adaptations made by Ms B. They recommended carrying out a further occupational therapy assessment. They also spoke, at Ms B’s request, to members of the wider family and a prospective PA who knew Mrs C already.
41. Around mid-March 2021 Mrs C fell ill with a urinary tract infection. The social worker visited her towards the end of the month and carried out a further mental capacity assessment. This again found Mrs C did not have capacity to decide where she should live. Then, in early April Mrs C fell ill again. Following admission to hospital, Mrs C died soon afterwards.

Issues around care provision

42. As part of my investigation, I noted Ms B’s concern that she could not visit Mrs C face-to-face at the care home. I noted the Government issued guidance in July 2020 to encourage care providers to resume visits to care homes suspended because of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, this said care homes should follow advice issued by local public health officials on whether visiting was appropriate. The guidance also made visits dependent on risk assessments which involved consideration of matters such as testing, social distancing, wearing of personal protective equipment and so on.
43. In October 2020 the Government introduced new local ‘tier’ levels of restrictions to reflect varying COVID-19 infection rates. It placed the greater Liverpool region, including the Wirral in the highest Tier 3 during that month. This meant that no external visits could take place to care homes except where someone was at end of life. In November 2020 it reintroduced national guidance which continued to prevent face-to-face care home visits except at end of life.
44. There was a return to local tier restrictions during December 2020. During this time, Wirral was in ‘Tier 2’ which allowed for visits to residential homes at the care home manager’s discretion and subject to risk assessments as before. Then in January 2021 the Government again introduced national restrictions which reduced visiting to care homes, again limiting this to end of life visits. Those national restrictions ended at the end of March 2021.
45. In this instance, throughout the time in question, the care home decided only to allow visits where it considered these essential or when a resident was at end of life. Until April 2021 it tried to maintain communication in other ways, such as by phone or window visits. It is the Council’s view, which commissioned Mrs C’s care, that the care home could reasonably take this approach. Its care planning documents noted in January 2021 that Ms B had made regular window visits and phoned her regularly. It also recorded that Mrs C found these visits distressing and needed much assurance afterwards.
46. Ms B has also expressed concern for how the care home met Mrs C’s hydration needs. I noted Mrs C’s social worker kept a record in November 2020 that on two visits to the care home they found Mrs C “with a very dry mouth”. They had prompted her to drink. The social worker considered Mrs C did not have the capacity to realise when she was thirsty and would need support with drinking. I also noted the Council established that Mrs C had dehydration on her admission to hospital in April 2021.
47. I saw care planning documents kept by the Care Provider, last reviewed in January 2021. These noted the concern that Mrs C was at risk of dehydration because of her cognitive impairment. Although elsewhere the same document referred to Mrs C drinking independently during the day. The Care Provider decided not to keep a detailed daily record of Mrs C’s fluid intake.
48. However, the Care Provider did keep daily logs. I saw copies of these for the final days of Mrs C’s stay before her admission to hospital. Staff recorded when Mrs C had drinks, although I note they were not specific about how much she drank.

Complaint handling

49. Ms B made a complaint to the Council, about the matters above, at the end of May 2021. The Council assigned this to an investigating officer in mid-July 2021. They offered to speak to Ms B and that conversation took place in early September. At the beginning of October 2021 Ms B agreed with the Council the scope of the investigation.
50. The Council replied to the complaint in August 2022. Meanwhile, the Council says its investigating officer made some enquiries to clarify details with social work staff. It has said there was around a two-month delay in getting a reply.
51. Where appropriate I have sought to summarise the Council’s position on the matters complained about above. But in brief, its response defended overall the social work service provided to Mrs C. It accepted at times its communications could have been better with Mrs B and that it delayed in responding to the care home’s request for a deprivation of liberty authorisation for Mrs C.

Findings

Complaint about Mrs C not returning to her family home and associated considerations

52. I found evidence of fault in the Council’s administration of Mrs C’s case after it arranged for her to move to a residential care home. First, it failed to authorise Mrs C’s residence in the care home under the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards for 15 months.
53. The law is clear the Council should act on all requests for authorisation within 21 days of receipt. The Council can reasonably choose to prioritise applications. And I can understand why, in this instance, the Council did not give the request for Mrs C’s authorisation the highest priority. But this should not have resulted in a significant delay beyond the 21-day target.
54. Second, I note a mental capacity assessment undertaken in April 2020 wrongly recorded such authorisation in place. That was at the time Mrs C’s residence transitioned from short to long term. The Council should have realised at that point it had not acted on the care home’s referral.
55. Third, I also consider the Council could have done more to explain to Ms B what the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards are and their use; the relevance of the Mental Capacity Act; what is meant by ‘best interest’ decision making and the role of the Court of Protection. These are not familiar concepts to those who do not work within social care. And even in that environment, confusion sometimes arises.
56. The Council’s own actions illustrate this. It was incorrect for the Council to advise Ms B in February 2021 that Mrs C could not move back to her family home until Ms B had been appointed her deputy. This made it sound as if legally no move could take place unless Ms B was her deputy. But if the Council found Mrs C had no capacity to decide where she should live, it could still have supported the move if it considered it in her best interests. So, the Council failed to distinguish between what was legally permissible and its own views towards the move. If it considered such a move was not in Mrs C’s best interests, then it could have referred the matter to the Court of Protection, possibly to run alongside Ms B’s application to become Mrs C’s deputy. But it was not the case that one had to depend on the other.
57. But despite these faults I am not persuaded the overall trajectory of this case would have been different if they had not occurred.
58. Primarily this is because I am not persuaded that at any point Ms B was in a position to receive Mrs C back at the family home, with a package of care in place (to include the support needed from a PA). I accept this was Ms B’s aspiration and she undertook efforts to make that aspiration a reality. But it is clear from the record the COVID-19 pandemic caused a significant interruption in Ms B’s plans. So, it was not until December 2020 when she began to push the Council to support a move for Mrs C back to the family home. The time period to put in place arrangements for Mrs C’s return, before she died, was therefore short – a little over three months. For it to have happened, the Council would have needed to satisfy itself the family home was suitably adapted for Mrs C; that there was 24-hour care on hand to meet her needs and that such a move was in her best interests. As Ms B herself noted these arrangements were not ones that could be rushed.
59. I appreciate that even so, in the early weeks of 2021 more might have been done by the Council to progress matters. It is evident from the case record that Mrs C’s original social worker had concerns about whether the proposed move would be in Mrs C’s best interests. I do not take issue with the social worker’s views which I am satisfied represented her professional judgment based on the facts of the case.
60. But I consider those views may have unreasonably influenced the mental capacity assessment in December 2020. The record for this is conspicuously less thorough than for other similar assessments. This assessment found Mrs C wanted to remain in the care home. But that went against the grain of all other mental capacity assessments which found Mrs C did not have capacity to decide where she should live or where her care needs should be met.
61. I also have a concern about the meeting with Ms B halted in December 2021. I appreciate the Council’s concern that Mrs C could not consent to having others present at a meeting discussing her welfare. But the Council could have nonetheless considered if it was in her best interest to allow another contribution. It is also unclear to me to what extent any information about Mrs C’s welfare unknown to the family friend would be discussed.
62. But I do not consider these factors delayed the progress of Ms B’s request to any significant degree. I also find there is much evidence from both before and after December 2020 that the Council never closed its mind to the idea of Mrs C returning home. But as I have said above, I think there was simply too much to be done that could have enabled the move to happen before April 2021. A view that must also take account of Mrs C’s poor health in March 2021 which would have delayed a move.
63. I consider a quicker authorisation of Mrs C’s stay at the care home under the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards may have helped focus the Council’s mind sooner on the steps that would be needed if Mrs C were to return home. But it would not have changed the chronology of those events in Ms B’s control which were fundamental in making any move happen. Nor would it have stopped the disrupting influence of the pandemic.
64. I also do not find that providing Ms B with a better understanding of matters such as the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards, best interest decision making and so on, would have had any significant bearing on events.
65. I consider Ms B’s injustice arising from the direct fault of the Council therefore amounts to some avoidable distress. This has to be distinguished from the inherently distressing situation Ms B found herself in.

Complaints about actions of the Care Provider

66. Next, I have considered if there is reason to make a separate finding of fault arising from the actions of the Care Provider, which gave care to Mrs C on behalf of the Council. There are two matters to consider. The first is the decision of the care home to continually restrict visits to relatives between July 2020 and the end of March 2021.
67. Any window for face-to-face visits to take place at the care home was short, restricted to a time from late July to mid-October 2020 and for December 2020 only. The remainder of the time, local or national restrictions limited visits to care homes from relatives to end of life.
68. For those periods when visits could take place, we would not find fault in the care home adopting a cautious approach. All relevant guidance at the time stressed the ongoing risk of transmission of COVID-19. But that said, there was still a clear expectation that ways be found to limit those risks, through risk assessment and precautions.
69. I am disappointed that no more record keeping has been provided to show how the Care Provider sought to balance these competing pressures at the time. This is especially in the light of it recording Mrs C’s distress at window visits.
70. But on balance, I do not find fault. This is after giving weight to the discretion afforded to individual care providers. Also, after considering that during the limited time frame in question there was legitimate concern at community transmission of COVID-19.
71. The second matter is the concern about the management of Mrs C’s hydration. In considering this part of the complaint I have taken account of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 (the 2014 Regulations). These set out the requirements for safety and quality in care provision. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) issues guidance on meeting the regulations (the Fundamental Standards.) The Ombudsman considers the Regulations and the Fundamental Standards when investigating complaints about poor standards of care.
72. I considered Regulation 14 relevant to this complaint, which covers nutritional and hydration needs. This says providers must ensure people have enough to eat and drink to meet their nutrition and hydration needs and receive the support they need to do so. This is to reduce risks of malnutrition and dehydration.
73. In this instance I found the Care Provider produced a comprehensive care plan for Mrs C which made explicit reference to her being at risk of dehydration. However, it is not clear to me why it then failed to put in place personalised care to ensure that need would be met. In particular, recording the amount Mrs C was drinking.
74. I noted above references to Mrs C appearing or being dehydrated. And while the limited daily care log notes I have seen refer to Mrs C receiving drinks, they do not specify the quantity. I also found those notes problematic. Because there were occasions when the record was clearly incorrect. For example, it recorded Mrs C taking two different meals at the same time.
75. On the balance of probability therefore, I considered there was insufficient evidence to show the care home met this need adequately. That justified a finding of fault. This failing will have caused Ms B additional distress.

Council complaint handling

76. Finally, I considered the Council’s complaint handling in this case. On its website the Council publishes its complaint policy. This explains that in line with Government guidance, no complaint investigation should take longer than six months. In this case the investigation took just over 14 months.
77. The Council is at fault for the time taken in this case. It has pointed to around two months spent in communication with Ms B, discussing and agreeing her complaint. But I do not find that provides mitigation for the delay. As this communication is part of the complaint procedure.
78. This fault caused Ms B further injustice as she experienced unnecessary time, trouble and frustration as a result.

Back to top

Agreed action

79. The Council has accepted the findings above and agreed the following actions.

Personal remedy

80. To remedy the injustice caused to Ms B the Council will, within 20 working days of this decision, provide the following:
1. an apology to Ms B accepting the findings of this investigation;
2. a symbolic payment of £500 to Ms B to reflect the distress and the unnecessary time and trouble caused by its failings and those of the Care Provider acting on its behalf.

Service Improvements

81. Within three months of a decision on this complaint the Council will also take action to improve its services, to help avoid a repeat of the failings in this case. It will:
1. introduce a procedure (or revise an existing procedure) so it can identify when it has failed to meet the 21-day limit to authorise a request under the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards. That procedure will identify what steps will be taken to ensure the request is acted on. It will contain appropriate escalation measures to senior managers where there are significant delays;
2. issue a reminder to all relevant social work staff of the importance of giving clear information to relatives on the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards; Mental Capacity Act assessments; the role of the Court of Protection and best interest decision making. The Council will review materials it has that can be shared with relatives such as leaflets or standard explanatory paragraphs that can be used in letters or emails to explain what is meant when these matters are referred to;
3. review with the Care Provider existing policy and practice around meeting the hydration needs of residents in care homes in the Council’s area (on the assumption the Council contracts with the Care Provider to meet the needs of other residents in its care homes). This will cover consideration of when the Care Provider keeps daily records of fluid intake and if it is currently doing so in appropriate cases. It will record if the Care Provider needs to make improvements in this area and if so, what is needed and by when;
4. issue a reminder to all staff who investigate social care complaints of the importance of investigations not exceeding six months. It will put a procedure in place (or amend an existing procedure) to ensure all cases where this timescale is exceeded are brought to the attention of senior managers so that action can be taken on individual cases to limit such delays.
82. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

83. For reasons set out above I uphold this complaint finding fault by the Council causing injustice to Ms B. The Council has accepted these findings and agreed action to remedy that injustice. Consequently, I can complete my investigation satisfied with its response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman