Summary: Mr B complains about contacts the Council had with him and his late mother in 2019 because of concerns for her welfare. We do not uphold the complaint finding no fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant ‘Mr B’. His complaint concerns the Council’s contacts with him connected to enquiries it made into the welfare of his late mother, who I will call ‘Mrs C’. In a series of complaints to the Council and to this office, Mr B says the Council:

• opened an safeguarding investigation into Mrs C’s circumstances in January 2019 despite her not living in its area; its investigation did not take account of Mrs C’s wishes; it did not consider if she was the victim of racism, abuse and assault by neighbours, the police and London Ambulance Service (LAS); Mr B says these organisations and individuals made false accusation Mrs C including that she suffered dementia; he also says a meeting held during the investigation was biased against her;
• undertook a care needs assessment of Mrs C against her wishes; sought a deprivation of her liberty and interfered in his mother’s health care; the Council’s actions did not take account that he held a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) to make decisions in respect of his mother’s health and welfare;
• made false allegations about his mother which led the police forcing entry to his house in March 2019.

2. Mr B says as a result Mrs C remained longer in a private hospital in January 2019 than she should of, thereby incurring costs. It also cost him between £2000 and £3000 to repair damage caused by the forced entry made by the police. Mr B also implies the Council’s actions caused both him and Mrs C distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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. Before issuing this decision statement I considered:

• Mr B’s written complaint to the Ombudsman and any supporting information he provided.
• Correspondence between Mr B and the Council pre-dating our investigation where it replied to his complaints.
• Information provided by the Council in response to our enquiries.
• Relevant law or guidance as set out in the text below.
• Comments made by Mr B and the Council in response to a draft decision statement where I set out my proposed findings.

Back to top

What I found

Key facts

6. In 2017, Mrs C lived at an address in the Council’s area. Between March 2017 and September 2018, the Council received multiple referrals from the police, LAS, another London authority and third parties alerting the Council to concerns about Mrs C’s welfare.
7. I summarise the concerns raised for Mrs C’s welfare as follows:

• that she had called the police or others had called the police or ambulance service because Mrs C appeared confused and/or distressed; more than once she locked herself in or out of her house and lost her keys; the emergency services speculated Mrs C may have dementia or another cognitive impairment and unmet health and social care needs;
• that when emergency services responded they understood Mrs C lived alone; they reported her home cluttered and dirty; they said she had no or limited food; they said they found the property cold when called out in winter;
• they reported Mrs C appeared to have poor personal hygiene and sometimes inappropriately dressed for the weather or in a state of undress; the reports implied she had urinary incontinence and sometimes wore dirty clothes;
• that while Mrs C received support from Mr B and others he did not appear to recognise concerns about her mental health, personal hygiene or condition of her home.

8. The Council made some initial enquiries into these reports but did not begin any formal investigation into Mrs C’s circumstances. However, in January 2019 the Council resolved to begin a safeguarding investigation under Section 42 of the Care Act 2014 (see below for further explanation). The background to this decision was:

• the police were called out again to Mrs C’s home where they reported finding her outside in a confused and agitated condition; they reported her inappropriately dressed for the cold weather; Mrs C reported taking medication but could not tell officers where it was or what it was for;
• they reported helping Mrs C into her property which they described as filthy and smelly; they described seeing rotten and/or half-eaten food;
• the police had called the LAS who believed Mrs C was suffering from hypothermia; they took her to an NHS hospital;
• Mr B had then transferred Mrs C from the NHS hospital to a private hospital; the private hospital believed Mrs C did not have capacity to consent for her stay there; it sought an urgent ‘deprivation of liberty’ authorisation to ensure Mrs C remained under its care to receive treatment.

9. The Council had concerns about the overall safety and wellbeing of Mrs C. It considered her in a place of safety while in hospital. But it had concerns about whether Mrs C would need support to meet potential care needs on discharge. It clarified that Mr B held a lasting power of attorney (LPA) to act for Mrs C in respect of health and welfare matters registered in 2018.
10. The Council recorded speaking to Mr B on opening its safeguarding enquiries. He also attended a meeting held at the hospital. The Council papers record Mr B saying:

• Mrs C lived with him in another London Borough; that she had spent a few days at the Hillingdon address over Christmas with her sons;
• that he had either arranged a package of home care to support his mother while he was at work or that he was in the process of arranging one;
• he would not consent to the Council meeting with Mrs C or carrying out an assessment of her mental capacity; however, he consented to a worker from a rehabilitation team based in the other London Borough carrying out a visit to Mrs C when the hospital discharged her;
• that reports made about concerns for Mrs C’s welfare were either excessive or false; he did not consider Mrs C had a cognitive impairment.

11. The Council concluded there was no evidence that Mr B was neglecting Mrs C’s needs. It did not try to block her discharge from hospital when the hospital considered it medically safe for her to return home. The Council closed its safeguarding investigation at the end of January 2019. This was on the understanding Mr B had arranged care for Mrs C at his home and the other London Borough would monitor her welfare.
12. However, at the end of February 2019 the other London Borough contacted the Council which invited it to join a professionals meeting. By now there were further concerns for Mrs C’s welfare as follows:

• information suggesting Mrs C needed medical help she was not receiving;
• Mr B had not commissioned a home care agency to provide care to Mrs C; a company had only completed an assessment of her needs;
• a worker from the other Council had visited Mrs C at Mr B’s home shortly after her discharge in January and reported it clean; but she had concerns about Mrs C’s health and safety based on her observations from that visit.

13. The meeting resolved the other London Borough and the Council would jointly undertake further safeguarding enquiries. These are the subject of a separate complaint by Mr B which we have registered against the other London Borough as it was the lead authority in making those enquiries.
14. However, as part of those enquiries the Council in this case tried to visit Mrs C at her address in its Borough to carry out a welfare check. It did not find her at home. Notes indicate the other London Borough went to Mr B’s home but could not locate Mrs C either. Both authorities informed the police who recorded her a missing person.
15. A few days after making this request the police told both authorities they had established Mr B and Mrs C had flown abroad. This was at the beginning of March 2019.
16. Mrs C remained abroad and passed away in May 2019.

My findings

17. I have begun by considering law and guidance relevant to this case. Section 42 of the Care Act 2014 says that: “where a local authority has reasonable cause to suspect that an adult in its area (whether or not ordinarily resident there)
1. has needs for care and support (whether or not the authority is meeting any of those needs),
2. is experiencing, or is at risk of, abuse or neglect, and
3. as a result of those needs is unable to protect himself or herself against the abuse or neglect or the risk of it;

the local authority must make (or cause to be made) whatever enquiries it thinks necessary to enable it to decide whether any action should be taken in the adult's case (whether under this Part or otherwise) and, if so, what and by whom.

18. In support of the Act the Government provides statutory guidance. This says the aims of adult safeguarding are to:

• prevent harm and reduce the risk of abuse or neglect to adults with care and support needs;
• stop abuse or neglect wherever possible;
• safeguard adults in a way that supports them in making choices and having control about how they want to live;
• promote an approach that concentrates on improving life for the adults concerned; […]
• address what has caused the abuse or neglect.

19. The advice says that neglect can include cases of self-neglect including behaviour such as “neglecting to care for one’s personal hygiene, health or surroundings and includes behaviour such as hoarding”.
20. When I apply the above law and guidance to this case I am satisfied the Council’s involvement was reasonable, proportionate and justified. I have reached this finding having considered the following:

• First, it was reasonable for the Council to become involved in Mrs C’s case in January 2019 despite Mr B’s statements that she was then living with him in another authority. The Council had multiple records of organisations raising concerns for Mrs C’s welfare connected to her address in its Borough, including the report it received a few days earlier. Mrs C might have recently moved but the Council could not know that without making enquiries. And if she had moved this did not account for why she was found outside her home in the Borough. The Council could reasonably make enquiries into Mrs C’s welfare including finding out where she was living. The reports it received about her presentation indicated she potentially had an unmet need for care and support; was suffering neglect and could not protect herself from that.
• Second, I see no reason for the Council not to have accepted the reports it received raising concerns about Mrs C’s welfare in good faith. The reports were multiple, detailed and consistent. The Council’s role was not to find out with absolute certainty what happened to prompt a referral in each case. But to consider if the concerns justified making enquiries to ensure Mrs C was safe. The Council had sufficient evidence in January 2019 that Mrs C might need safeguarding for the reasons I stated above. The Council could not and did not attempt to diagnose if Mrs C had dementia or another condition. But it could not ignore the evidence she appeared to have some form of cognitive impairment from what others told it including health professionals.
• Third, I am satisfied the investigation conducted by the Council in January 2019 took proper account of Mr B’s views. It noted his dissent from the concern his mother had a cognitive impairment and his view that reports made about her home and condition were exaggerated. I am satisfied the Council properly weighed Mr B’s views and statements in the decisions it took in this case. For example, it relied on Mr B’s statements that he would arrange home care for Mrs C on her discharge from hospital. This contributed to it closing its initial safeguarding investigation in January 2019.
• Fourth, the Council clearly did not act in ignorance of Mr B holding a LPA for decisions around Mrs C’s health and welfare. But this did not prevent it carrying out safeguarding enquiries as a LPA must act in the subjects best interests. If reports suggest this might not be the case then enquiries become justified. I am satisfied as part of its enquiries the Council tried to obtain Mrs C’s views but could not do so because of Mr B’s actions. It cannot be said it acted contrary to Mrs C’s views as they were unknown.
• Fifth, it was the hospital’s decision to seek an authorisation for the deprivation of Mrs C’s liberty. So, this is not a matter for which the Council could be criticised.
• Sixth, I do not consider the Council responsible for any damage caused to Mr B’s property by the police. It was a party to the decision that the police try and locate Mrs C at the beginning of March 2019. But it did this because it had reasonable concerns for her welfare documented above. Neither it, nor the other London Borough knew Mrs C had left the country as they were not told. Further, it is for the police to account for their actions if they forced entry into Mr B’s property.

21. I accept Mr B may still disagree with some of the Council’s actions in this case. I am aware that throughout he believes he always acted in accord with his mother’s wishes and in her best interests. But my role is not to judge the reasonableness of Mr B’s actions but those of the Council. And his disagreement with those actions, while sincerely held, is not a basis on which I can find fault. Taking the above into account I am satisfied the Council did not act with fault in its involvement in two safeguarding investigations; both that undertaken on its own initiative and that it undertook with the other London Borough.

Final decision

22. I have completed my investigation as I find no reason to uphold the complaint. There is no evidence of fault by the Council causing injustice to Mr B or his late mother.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman