Summary: There is no fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s parents when his brother was no longer able to care for them. There is also no fault in the way the Council raised concerns with the Office of the Public Guardian about Mr X’s application for Lasting Power of Attorney.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council's involvement in his parents’ care. He says it moved them into a care home without properly involving the family, despite him and his brother holding lasting power of attorney. Mr X believes the Council had financial motives and did not act in line with his parents’ wishes or best interests. He believes the Council’s social worker had a personal vendetta against him and his brother.
2. Mr X says the Council failed to tell healthcare staff about his parents’ move into the care home. He says this resulted in life-threatening incidents for his mother, who needs help to manage diabetes.
3. Mr X says the Council challenged his application for lasting power of attorney and provided misleading and false evidence to the Office of the Public Guardian.
4. Mr X says the Council’s faults affected his parents’ dignity and family life. He says the issues caused stress for him and his siblings, one of whom also has care needs, and led to risk of criminal prosecution and reputational damage for Mr X and his brother.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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

7. I have considered notes of Mr X’s conversation with an Investigator and information he has sent to the Ombudsman. I have also considered the information the Council has provided in response to my enquiries. This includes care records for Mr X’s parents whilst they were in a care home.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

9. Mr X’s parents both have care needs. Mr X’s mother has dementia and type 2 diabetes. Mr X’s brother has autism and also requires care.
10. Another of Mr X’s brother was living with his parents and brother but had to move out when he got a new job. Mr X contacted the Council on 14 May 2018 to explain what was happening and the Council carried out a review of the family’s needs.
11. Mr X’s parents were moved to Cedar Court Care Home on 22 May 2018. During their stay in the Care Home Mr X expressed his wishes for his parents to return home. The Council said it believed their needs would be better met in residential care.
12. On 25 July 2018 the Council agreed to put the a care package in to place for
    Mr X’s parents and his brother at home. This included overnight care for Mr X’s mother.
13. Mr X’s parents were returned home on 6 August 2018.
14. In November 2018 the Council contacted the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) to ask if Mr X and his brother had lasting power of attorney (LPA) for their parents. The OPG said the applications was being processed. The Council raised concerns with the OPG regarding the validity of the applications as it was concerned that Mr X and his brother may have asked their parents to sign documents when the lacked capacity to do so.
15. Mr X says the Council purposely gave the OPG false information because it wanted to be the decision maker for his parents.
16. In early 2019 the OPG applied to the Court of Protection to ask it to determine whether Mr X’s father had capacity to appoint Mr X and his brother as LPAs in 2016. The Court suspended Mr X and his brother’s lasting power of attorney. The OPG decided it had no concerns about Mr X’s mothers LPA.
17. Mr X says that the Court of Protection chose to maintain LPAs for him and his brother in October 2019.

Decision to move Mr X’s parents to a care home

18. Mr X contacted the Council to request assistance with his parent’s care when his brother was no longer able to continue living with them. The Council informed
    Mr X of its plans and he said he would assist his parents into the taxi.
19. The Council took account of Mr X’s wishes when he said he wanted his parents to return home. As a result of this the Council arranged for his parents to return home with a package of care.
20. The Council also carried out mental capacity assessments and Depravation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) assessments before and after placing Mr X’s parents I the home.
21. The Council has involved Mr X and his family about decisions regarding his parents’ care. It has also carried out relevant assessments regarding their welfare and ability to make decisions. Therefore, there is no fault in how the Council reached its decision to place Mr X’s parents in the Care Home and no evidence it failed to act in their best interests.

Failure to inform healthcare staff about the Care Home placement

22. The Council informed the District Nurse Mr X’s parents were moving to the Care Home on the day they were admitted. The notes from the Care Home indicate that there was no issues with the District Nurse being able to attend to administer Mr X’s mother’s medication. Therefore, I cannot find fault as the Council informed healthcare staff about the move.
23. Mr X’s mother’s support plan explained that she required prompting with eating to maintain her blood sugar levels because of her diabetes and the Care Home has provided records that her food and fluid intake was monitored.
24. The Ombudsman’s role is not to assess the quality of the care provided but to ensure proper policies and procedures were followed in administering care in line with any care and support plans. There is no evidence to suggest that care and support plans were not followed or that Mr X’s mother’s food and fluid intake was not monitored.

Council’s interactions with the OPG

25. I cannot continue to investigate Mr X’s complaint regarding information the Council gave to the OPG in relation to his application for LPA for his father. This is because the matter has been decided by the Court of Protection. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about the commencement or conduct of civil or criminal proceedings before a court of law.
26. The OPG had no concerns about Mr X’s application for LPA for his mother. However, I have found no fault in the way the Council passed on its concerns to the OPG. This is because the Council is entitled to raise concerns it has even if those concerns eventually turn out to be unfounded. It would set a dangerous precedent were the Ombudsman restrict local councils ability to raise concerns as it may prevent or discourage them from doing so. Based on the evidence I have seen the Council had sufficient reason to raise the issue with the OPG.
27. The Council has accepted it should have provided more information to Mr X about why it was referring the matter to the OPG. However, there was no requirement for the Council to do so and the ultimate decision about LPA rests with the OPG and Court of Protection.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation as I have found no fault with the actions of the Council.
29. I have stopped my investigation into the Council’s decision to raise concerns about Mr X’s application for LPA for his father as this matter has been before the Court of Protection.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman