Summary: Ms F complained on behalf of her late mother about the care provided in the Council commissioned care home, Franklin House Care Home. We found some fault which caused distress to Ms F. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy this injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms F complained on behalf of her late mother, Mrs J, about the care provided in the Council commissioned care home, Franklin House Care Home (operated by Franklin Care Group), which caused distress. In particular, Ms F complained the Care Home:
• Did not provide adequate personal care, removed her walking aid, failed to prevent falls and keep Mrs J safe, and lost her mother’s belongings.
• Was too keen to seek medication to sedate Mrs J.
• Failed to keep adequate records.
• Failed to involve her in decisions about her mother’s care and medication.
• Gave incorrect information in a continuing healthcare assessment meeting.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. Part 3 and Part 3A of the Local Government Act 1974 give us our powers to investigate adult social care complaints. Part 3 is for complaints where local councils provide services themselves. It also applies where a council arranges or commissions care services from a provider, even if the council charges the person receiving the care. In these cases, we treat the provider’s actions as if they were council actions. (Part 3 and Part 3A Local Government Act 1974; section 25(6) & (7) of the Act)
4. We normally name care homes and other care providers in our decision statements. However, we will not do so if we think someone could be identified from the name of the care home or care provider. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34H(8), as amended)
5. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who has died or who cannot authorise someone to act for them. The complaint may be made by:
• their personal representative (if they have one), or
• someone we consider to be suitable.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(2), as amended)

6. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available, relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
7. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
8. 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)
9. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

10. The law says 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)
11. The law is silent in relation to complaints brought on behalf of a person who does not have capacity to decide to complain. However we must still consider whether:
• We are confident that there is a realistic prospect of reaching a sound, fair, and meaningful decision, and
• We are satisfied that the complainant could not reasonably be expected to have complained sooner.
12. Ms F complained to us in October 2024 so events prior to September 2023 were late. But Ms F had first complained to the Council in October 2023. After not getting a response, she complained again in February 2024. I consider that if the Council had responded to Ms F’s October 2023 complaint, she could have come to the Ombudsman by March 2024, so I have decided to exercise discretion to investigate events from March 2023.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

13. I spoke to Ms F about her complaint and considered the information she sent, the Council’s response to my enquiries and relevant law and guidance.
14. Ms F and the Council had an opportunity to comment on two draft decisions. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Care and support

15. The Care Act 2014 requires local authorities to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. The assessment determines what the person's needs are and whether the person has any needs which are eligible for support from the council. Where councils have determined that a person has any eligible needs, they must meet those needs. The person's needs and how they will be met must be set out in a care and support plan.
16. Everyone whose needs the local authority meets must receive a personal budget as part of the care and support plan. A personal budget sets out the cost of meeting eligible needs, the amount a person must contribute to that cost and the amount the council must contribute.
17. Councils should keep care and support plans under review. They should carry out reviews as quickly as is reasonably practicable in a timely manner proportionate to the needs to be met. Councils must also conduct a review if an adult or a person acting on the adult’s behalf makes a reasonable request for one.

Fundamental Standards of Care

18. The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 set out the fundamental standards those registered to provide care services must achieve. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has issued guidance on how to meet the fundamental standards below which care must never fall. The standards include:
• Person-centred care (Regulation 9): The service user must have care or treatment that is tailored and meets their needs and preferences. Providers must involve a person acting on the service user’s behalf in the planning of their care and treatment.
• Dignity and respect (Regulation 10): Service users must be treated with dignity and respect and in a caring and compassionate way.
• Safe care and treatment (Regulation 12): Providers must do all that is reasonably practicable to mitigate risks to the service user’s health and safety. The provider must have arrangements to take appropriate action if there is a clinical or medical emergency.
• Safeguarding from abuse (Regulation 13): Service users must be protected from abuse and improper treatment, this includes neglect.
• Good governance (Regulation 17): Providers must maintain securely an accurate, complete and contemporaneous record in respect of each service user.

Mental capacity

19. A person must be presumed to have capacity to make a decision unless it is established that they lack capacity. If this is in doubt, the council must carry out a mental capacity assessment in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
20. Any act done for, or any decision made on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be in that person’s best interests. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 sets out the steps that decision makers must follow to determine what is in a person’s best interests.
21. The Court of Protection may need to become involved if there is disagreement which cannot be resolved in any other way and decide what is in the person’s best interests.
22. The Act introduced the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA), which is a legal document which allows people to choose one person (or several) to make decisions about their health and welfare and/or their finances and property, for when they become unable to do so for themselves. Any decision has to be in the donor’s best interests. The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) oversees the work of attorneys.

Safeguarding

23. A council must make enquiries if it thinks a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has care and support needs which mean the person cannot protect themselves. A council must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse. (section 42, Care Act 2014)

Top-up payments

24. The Care and Support and Aftercare (Choice of Accommodation) Regulations 2014 set out what people should expect from a council when it arranges a care home place for them. Where the care planning process has determined a person’s needs are best met in a care home, the council must provide for the person’s preferred choice of accommodation, subject to certain conditions.
25. The council must ensure at least one accommodation option is available and affordable within the person’s personal budget.
26. However, a person must also be able to choose alternative options, including a more expensive setting, where a third party is willing and able to pay the difference between the personal budget and the cost of the home. This is called a ‘top-up’. A top-up payment must always be optional and never the result of commissioning failures leading to a lack of choice.
27. If no suitable accommodation is available at the amount identified in the personal budget, the council must arrange care in a more expensive setting and adjust the budget to ensure it meets the person’s needs. In such circumstances, the council must not ask anyone to pay a top-up.

What happened

28. I have set out the key events; this is not meant to detail everything that happened.
29. Mrs J had dementia and since 2022 had been living in Franklin House Care Home (“the Home”) operated by Franklin Care Group. She had been assessed as not having the mental capacity to make decisions about her care or accommodation. Her daughters (Ms F and Ms K) had joint and several power of attorney.
30. Mrs J had health conditions which caused her pain and communication difficulties. She could become frustrated and agitated, sometimes refused care and could strike out at staff or residents. Ms F considered the Home’s environment caused Mrs J to feel agitated or distressed and had raised concerns about the quality of care.
31. The Home had care plans and risk assessments in place, which I have seen were regularly reviewed. They included:
• Behaviour: The care plan listed signs to look out for in changes to Mrs J’s mood, possible triggers, such as a noisy environment and constipation, and methods to diffuse the situation, such as distraction. It says staff should document behaviour on a behaviour (“ABC”) chart.
• Mobility: Mrs J was mobile and liked to walk around the Home. The physiotherapists had recommended she use a walking aid but had since discharged her. The care plan says staff were to remind Mrs J to use the walking aid but “she will use it when it is passed to her but will soon leave it and walk away.” The mobility risk assessment says Mrs J had been assessed as unsafe to access the garden alone with her walking stick “due to her reluctance to use her stick and follow instruction”. She was to use a wheelchair to get around the garden. The risk assessment for the walking aid says in the event the walking stick did not appear to be helpful then staff were to refer to physiotherapy for a reassessment.
• Falls: Mrs J was at high risk of falls and staff were required to monitor her as she walked around. A sensor mat was in place by her bed.
• Personal care: Mrs J needed help with this, including fingernail care. The care plan says she was assisted with toenails by podiatry and wore glasses for reading but often removed them. In relation to oral care, the plan says that Mrs J’s bottom dentures were lost in June 2022 and a referral was made for a new set.
32. In March 2023, Mrs J hit another resident. The Home called 111 and asked for medication to help calm Mrs J. 111 advised the Home to contact Mrs J’s GP. A mental health practitioner from the older people’s mental health community liaison team (CLMHOP) visited the next day. She said she would speak to Mrs J's consultant psychiatrist about medication.
33. The GP prescribed mirtazapine. Ms F says the consultant prescribed an antipsychotic (promazine) to be used when needed which was discussed with Ms K but not Ms F. I have seen no evidence of discussions with Ms K or consultant or that an antipsychotic was prescribed.
34. Ms F was concerned about Mrs J using medication as she felt this would inappropriately sedate Mrs J. Ms F wanted other techniques to be used and for the Home to understand the triggers for Mrs J’s behaviour. Ms F raised her concerns with the mental health practitioner who visited on 3 April to assess Mrs J. The practitioner recommended that:
• The Home complete sleep and behaviour (“ABC”) charts to help determine if there were any triggers for Mrs J’s behaviour.
• Dementia mapping be carried out.
• A personal assistant could be appointed to provide one-to-one support.
• promethazine should not be prescribed.
35. I have seen no evidence this plan was discussed with Ms K. A practitioner started the dementia mapping a few weeks later and Ms F appointed a personal assistant to visit Mrs J twice a week. I have not seen evidence that ABC charts were completed, other than for one time in December 2023, although I have seen the Home did complete incident reports. Ms F says a prescription for promazine was made out on 11 June. It would not be fault for the Home to follow a prescription but the medication records I have seen do not show promazine or promethazine being given or prescribed.
36. Ms F had concerns about the Home and sent these to the Council as part of the deprivation of liberties review. She says when she visited Mrs J in June 2023 the Home advised her Mrs J’s dentures had been lost for a few weeks. The Home has since said the dentures were not lost and remain in their possession. It says Mrs J refused to wear them.
37. A few weeks later there was an incident between Mrs J and another resident which resulted in the other resident being seriously injured. The Home spoke to the Council which agreed to refer Mrs J to CLMHOP for assessment. There was discussion about medication; Ms F said no medication should be prescribed without discussing with her. Ms F says the Home told her it could no longer meet Mrs J’s needs.
38. The mental health practitioner visited Mrs J the next day. The Home asked for one-to-one support to be put in place. The practitioner told the Council she recommended a dementia nursing placement and a medication review by the consultant psychiatrist. A best interest decision meeting would be required to determine what accommodation or medication Mrs J needed. The Council asked the Home for its logs of recent incidents and notes of any triggers. The Home said de-escalation techniques had not worked and one-to-one support was needed. The Council asked the mental health practitioner to refer Mrs J to the consultant psychiatrist for a review. The practitioner advised the mental health crisis team that Ms F had declined a medication review so no referral was made to the psychiatrist.
39. The Council then closed the case on 11 July so that it could be re-allocated to a social worker to carry out a care and support review of Mrs J’s placement and a mental capacity assessment on whether Mrs J could make a decision about her accommodation.
40. In August, Ms F found a dementia nursing home (“Home X”) in another local authority area which said it could take Mrs J.
41. On 23 August, CLMHOP told the Council that Mrs J’s needs could not be met in the Home without the support of medication. As Ms F had declined a medication review, Mrs J required a dementia nursing placement.
42. Mrs J’s case was allocated to a social worker on 4 September and a capacity assessment done on 11 September in relation to accommodation. Mrs J was found not to have capacity to make a decision about this. The Council awaited a capacity assessment by the consultant in relation to medication before a best interest meeting could be held.
43. Mrs J’s GP visited on 12 October and found she did not have capacity to make a decision about her medication. The GP referred Mrs J to the consultant psychiatrist for a review.
44. Ms F complained to the Council on 16 October with concerns about the Home, in particular about:
• Staff competence and concerns about historic safeguarding issues involving current staff.
• Risks of harm to Mrs J from falling and other residents.
• Poor personal care, poor quality care, Mrs J’s items going missing and a lack of activities.
• Mrs J’s walking aid not being provided.
• Concerns about medication.
• Poor record keeping and a failure to involve her in decisions.
• Failure to respond to her October 2023 complaint.
45. This was not recorded as a complaint by the Council but it held a quality meeting to discuss the concerns and started to carry out quality monitoring visits of the Home.
46. A private consultant psychiatrist assessed Mrs J on 23 October. Ms F says he recommended memantine but I have seen no evidence this was then prescribed.
47. Ms F says that, on 23 November, Mrs J accessed the garden unaccompanied. There is no record of this in the Home’s daily notes or incident charts. Ms F emailed the Home concerned about trip hazards in the garden. She asked for an alarm and motion-sensitive lighting to be fitted.
48. An NHS psychiatrist assessed Mrs J’s mental capacity on 24 November. The assessment notes that memantine had previously been prescribed in the community but it does not recommend prescribing memantine. At this point a best interest meeting could have been held. The case was allocated to a social worker on 12 December.
49. At an NHS continuing healthcare assessment in February 2024, Ms F says the Home said a physiotherapist had advised the walking aid should not be used as it was a falls risk and Mrs J had used it as a weapon. But the physiotherapy team then told Ms F that no such advice had ever been given. Ms F says a new referral was made to physiotherapy to replace the walking aid as the original had been lost. I have not seen evidence of this referral but Ms F has sent evidence that a new walking aid was provided in March.
50. Ms F complained to the Council again in February 2024. She also contacted the CQC.
51. A best interest decision meeting was held on 15 March. It was agreed that memantine should be tried and that Mrs J should move to a dementia nursing placement.
52. The medication records for 14 to 20 March show that memantine was offered to Mrs J but she refused to take it. Ms F says the psychiatrist suggested covert medication and there were discussions about this. At a safeguarding discussion in January 2025, the Home denied giving Mrs J any medication covertly. I have seen no evidence of medication being given covertly.
53. The Council started looking for a dementia nursing placement. The Council’s case notes say that on 22 March the Council was still awaiting a response from Home X and Home Y. The Council contacted Home Y on 3 April but the records do not say if a response was received. Ms F emailed the Council on 9 April with concerns about Home Z. Home X offered Mrs J a place. Mrs J’s current Home gave notice.
54. A care and support assessment was completed. The care and support plan said Mrs J’s indicative personal budget was £515 per week. The plan named Home X but the Council had to agree the funding as it was higher than its usual rate.
55. The Council’s case notes of 16 May say that Home Y and Home Z had no vacancies. The Council emailed Ms F on 22 May saying that Home Y had a vacancy and “on the basis that the Local Authority could meet Mrs J’s needs in one of our dementia nursing homes,” it was not able to pay the full cost of £1,362.50 for Home X. The difference between the Council’s usual rate (£1,070) and the full cost would need to be paid as a top-up by the family. The Council did not consider moving to Home X would be in Mrs J’s best interest as it was in a different area. It was considering whether to raise a concern with the OPG that Ms F was not acting in Mrs J’s best interests.
56. Ms F replied with her concerns about Home Y and why she considered only Home X could meet Mrs J’s needs. She also considered that the Council should fully fund Home X due to the problems there had been with Mrs J’s current placement. As funding was not agreed, Mrs J remained in the Home.
57. In June 2024, Mrs J fell and fractured her hip. The Home said it was unable to continue to meet Mrs J’s needs. The safeguarding strategy meeting of 9 July did not substantiate that there had been neglect or acts of omission by the Home. Ms F says a meeting in October 2024 did so; I have seen no notes of this meeting.
58. The Council replied to Ms F’s complaint on 9 July. It said:
• It had made unannounced quality monitoring visits to the Home. It apologised it had not informed Ms F about the outcome of these but it had found staff were trained and it had no concerns about the overall quality of care. The Council could not investigate whether the Home’s manager had been involved in historic safeguarding matters. All providers were required to ensure staff had DBS checks. There was no evidence of any conflicts of interest.
• It had no concerns about the personal care provided to Mrs J though sometimes she declined it. The Home had said Mrs J’s dentures were not missing but Mrs J did not want to use them. Activities were available for Mrs J to take part in if she wished.
• Mrs J had not wanted to use her walking aids and had been referred to physiotherapy; a walking stick had been provided. After Mrs J went into the garden alone, changes had been made and a trip hazard dealt with.
• Mrs J’s medication had been discussed at the best interest meeting and agreed with Mrs J’s doctors.
• Some charts were not kept electronically but had been printed for Ms F.
• The Home acknowledged it had not always involved Ms F.
• It was working with Ms F to find a new placement as Mrs J could not return to the Home when she left hospital.
59. The Council made a referral to the OPG as it was concerned Ms F may not be acting in Mrs J’s best interest due to her refusal to:
• Allow a medication review in June 2023.
• Allow covert medication.
• Allow Mrs J to move to Home Y or Home Z.
• Pay a top-up for Home X.
60. And due to frequent complaints about the Home contributing to a breakdown in the relationship.
61. Ms F came to the Ombudsman. Mrs J was discharged from hospital to a different care home and sadly passed away a few months later. The OPG then closed its case saying “Following a case review from our legal team, I can confirm had our investigation progressed to fruition, OPG would have concluded their case with no further action. This is due to OPG receiving no evidence, up to the date Mrs J passed away, to substantiate the concerns which were raised.”

My findings

62. I have considered each of Ms F’s complaints separately below.

Did not provide adequate personal care, removed her walking aid, failed to prevent falls and keep Mrs J safe, and lost her mother’s belongings.

63. Ms F said there were times Mrs J’s nails had not been cut and she looked unkempt. Having reviewed the daily records I have seen no evidence that personal care was not provided. There is evidence Mrs J sometimes refused personal care. Ms F is concerned that wording in the daily records is duplicated but this is not fault and is not evidence that the records are wrong or that care was not provided.
64. There is evidence that Mrs J often refused or forgot to use her walking aid. The care plan said staff should remind Mrs J to use the walking aid and I have seen no evidence staff did not do so or that they removed it from her other than if she had used it as a weapon. There is evidence a new walking aid was provided in March 2024 but this is not evidence that the care plan had not been followed.
65. Mrs J was at high risk of falls and had a number of falls. The care plan and risk assessment say staff were to monitor her as she walked around. I have seen no evidence they did not do so. Mrs J did not have one-to-one care at all times so there were times when she had unwitnessed falls. This is not evidence that the Home was not complying with her care plan.
66. Ms F says the Home told her it had lost Mrs J’s dentures, glasses and other items. The Home later said the dentures were not lost and the glasses had been broken after Mrs J’s admission to the Home. Ms K had said they did not need to be replaced. This is poor communication but it is not evidence that items had been lost.
67. On the evidence seen, I do not find the Home failed to comply with Mrs J’s care plans and risk assessments and I do not find fault.

Was too keen to seek medication to sedate Mrs J.

68. It is not for the Ombudsman to determine the best treatment for Mrs J. Ms F did not want medication being used to manage Mrs J’s behaviour. This does not make it fault for the Home to seek advice from medical professionals about medication or care for Mrs J as it did in March 2023. It was not required to gain Ms F’s consent to do so. I have seen that the Home was advised by 111 to talk to Mrs J’s GP and that the GP prescribed mirtazapine. I have seen no evidence an antipsychotic was prescribed or that medication was given covertly. There was no fault.

Failed to keep adequate records.

69. There is no evidence the Home kept the ABC behaviour charts as recommended by the mental health practitioner in April 2023. This is fault. But I cannot say that if the charts had been kept, the number of incidents would have reduced or Mrs J would have felt less distressed. Nor did the lack of behaviour charts lead to medication being used. So I do not find it caused significant injustice to Mrs J.
70. I have seen that the Home kept records of incidents and falls and reported these to safeguarding and the CQC but it did not record the incident of Mrs J being alone in the garden.

Failed to involve her in decisions about her mother’s care and medication.

71. Ms F and Ms K held joint and several power of attorney. This means the Home could act on the instructions of one attorney and it would not be fault do so.
72. However, as the Home was aware that Ms F wanted to be involved it should have consulted Ms F and it has accepted it failed to do so. Ms F was involved in the best interest decision of March 2024, and in the discussion with the Council about care home placements. So whilst the lack of involvement in other matters has caused Ms F distress, I do not consider it caused a significant injustice to Mrs J.

Gave incorrect information in a continuing healthcare assessment meeting.

73. Ms F says the Home wrongly told the CHC assessor that physiotherapy had said the walking stick should be removed from Mrs J. Whilst I have seen that the care plan says the walking stick was not to be used in the garden, I have not seen evidence that physiotherapy advised it should be removed at other times. I therefore find there was fault.
74. However, I do not consider this caused significant injustice to Mrs J as it is unlikely that any CHC decisions would be made on the use of a walking aid alone.
75. Whilst reviewing the evidence, I have identified other fault by the Council.

Delay in carrying out a care and support review and best interest decision

76. Following the June 2023 incident, the mental health practitioner advised the Council that Mrs J required a dementia nursing placement, medication review and that the Home had asked for one-to-one support to be put in place.
77. This meant the Council needed to review Mrs J’s care and support needs and make best interest decisions. The Council referred the case to a social worker on 11 July but it was not allocated until 4 September. The social worker assessed Mrs J’s capacity in relation to accommodation and the GP did so in relation to medication. There was then a further capacity assessment by the NHS psychiatrist on 24 November 2023.
78. At this point there should have been a care and support review and a best interest meeting to determine whether Mrs J required a different placement or one-to-one support. This is because CLMHOP’s recommendation had been that if Mrs J’s behaviours were not managed with medication, she would require a dementia nursing placement. But the care and support review and the best interest decision were not carried out until March 2024.
79. I find this delay is fault. This causes injustice to Ms F. Ms F will never know whether, if a best interest meeting had been held in November 2023, Mrs J may have been able to move to a different care home sooner. I cannot say what a best interest decision would have been or whether, if Mrs J had moved, she would not have fallen but the distress caused by the uncertainty is a significant injustice to Ms F.

Incorrect advice in relation to top-up payments

80. The Council told Ms F on 22 May 2024 that she would be required to pay a top-up if Mrs J was to move to Home X. It said this was because Mrs J’s needs could be met in a dementia nursing home at its usual rate.
81. But the evidence I have seen does not show that any dementia nursing home at the Council’s rate had offered Mrs J a place or had said it could meet her needs. The case notes are unclear, saying on 16 May that Home Y did not have a vacancy. I have not seen any contact from Home Y confirming it could take Mrs J.
82. In addition, the calculation the Council should be making is the cost of Home X against the personal budget in Mrs J’s care and support plan. The indicative personal budget was £515 per week but it is unclear if this amount would have been sufficient to meet Mrs J’s needs in a dementia nursing placement as the Council’s said its usual rate was £1,070 per week. So the amount of any top-up needed is unclear.
83. I find that no dementia nursing home that could take Mrs J was available at the amount identified in the personal budget. The Council should therefore have arranged care in Home X and adjusted Mrs J’s personal budget to ensure it was sufficient to meet her needs. It was therefore fault to ask Ms F to pay a top-up.
84. This has caused significant injustice to Ms F in the form of uncertainty. As she was unable or unwilling to pay a top-up, Mrs J remained in the Home. If there had been no fault she could have moved to Home X in May 2024. I cannot say that she would not have fallen but the uncertainty is a significant injustice to Ms F.

Summary of findings

85. There was the following fault:
1. The Home failed to keep ABC behaviour charts as recommended by the mental health practitioner in April 2023. This did not cause significant injustice to Mrs J.
2. The Home failed to keep Ms F involved in all discussions causing her distress.
3. The Home wrongly told the CHC assessor that physiotherapy had advised the walking stick should be removed from Mrs J. This did not cause significant injustice to Mrs J.
4. The Council delayed carrying out a care and support review and best interest decision from November 2023 to March 2024. This caused uncertainty and distress to Ms F.
5. The Council wrongly asked Ms F to pay a top-up for Home X. This caused uncertainty and distress to Ms F.
6. The Council delayed responding to Ms F’s complaints of October 2023 and February 2024. This caused her time and trouble pursuing her complaint.
86. I have not found fault in the other parts of the complaint.
87. When we have evidence of fault causing injustice we will seek a remedy for that injustice which aims to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in if nothing had gone wrong. When this is not possible, we will normally consider asking for a symbolic payment to acknowledge the avoidable distress caused. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way that a court might. For distress caused by fault, our guidance on remedies says a moderate, symbolic payment up to £500 may be appropriate.

Back to top

Action

88. When a council commissions or arranges for another organisation to provide services, we treat actions taken by or on behalf of that organisation as actions taken on behalf of the council and in the exercise of the council’s functions. Where we find fault with the actions of the service provider, we can make recommendations to the Council.
89. Within a month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms F and pay her £500 to remedy the distress caused.
90. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
91. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

92. There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman