Norfolk County Council (19 016 522)

Category : Adult care services > Safeguarding

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 03 Mar 2021

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Council acted appropriately when Mrs X raised safeguarding concerns about her mother, Mrs Y. It followed correct procedures in line with the relevant law. We have completed our investigation and have not upheld Mrs X’s complaint.

The complaint

  1. Ms X complains the Council failed to take appropriate action to safeguard her mother, Mrs Y when she reported her concerns that Mrs Y was a victim of abuse. Mrs X says she reported her concerns on several occasions between April 2018 and September 2019 but that the Council took no substantive action to protect Mrs Y.

Back to top

What I have investigated

  1. I have investigated the events which took place between April 2018 and April 2019. This is between when Mrs X first raised a safeguarding concern, and when the matter was considered by the Courts.
  2. Paragraph 24 explains what I have not investigated and why.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
  2. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
  3. 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

  1. I have considered Mrs X’s complaint and information provided by the Council.
  2. Mrs 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

The Law

  1. Section 42 of the Care Act 2014 requires that each local authority must make enquiries if it believes an adult is experiencing, or is at risk of, abuse or neglect. An enquiry should establish whether any cation needs to be taken to prevent or stop abuse or neglect, and if so, by whom.
  2. Having mental capacity means being able to make your own decisions. The Council will assess someone to see whether they lack capacity to make specific decisions because of illness or disability.
  3. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 states that Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) can only apply to people who are in a care home or hospital. This includes where there are plans to move a person to a care home or hospital where they may be deprived of their liberty.
  4. A Best Interests decision is a decision made by applying the Best Interest principle, as set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The decision is made for and on behalf of a person who lacks capacity to make their own decision. A Best Interests decision should, wherever possible reflect the decision that the person lacking capacity would make for themselves and should be something that would interfere less with the person’s basic rights and freedoms. This is called finding the "least restrictive option".

What happened

  1. Mrs Y lived at home with her husband, Mr Y. They are both in their 80s. Their daughter, Mrs X said Mrs Y is a victim of domestic abuse and Mr Y does not provide her with proper care and support.
  2. In March 2018, Mrs Y was admitted to hospital. Mrs Y discharged herself and Mr Y took her home. In April 2018, Mrs X raised safeguarding concerns with the Council but called the police when she felt the Council were not going to do anything. Mrs Y was readmitted to hospital.
  3. Hospital staff applied for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) due to concerns that Mrs Y would discharge herself again. The Council made the decision to keep Mrs Y in hospital until it had completed the safeguarding process.
  4. The Council carried out the safeguarding process whilst Mrs Y remained in hospital. I cannot include details of this process in my statement as contains confidential information about third parties. However, I can confirm that I am satisfied the Council took appropriate steps.
  5. In May 2018, Mrs Y was discharged from the hospital to a care home.
  6. Over the coming months, the Council considered all the relevant information and including Mrs Y’s mental capacity. The conclusion was that Mrs Y did not have capacity to identify her own care and support needs but she could decide that she wanted to return home to live with her husband. The Council and the family decided it was in Mrs Y’s best interest, as the ‘least restrictive’ option for her to return home provided that suitable live-in care would be arranged. I am satisfied the Council properly considered and the information and followed good practice to get Mrs Y home, where she wanted to be.
  7. In October 2018, Mrs Y returned home without any live-in care arranged.
  8. After a short time, the Council and family decided it was in Mrs Y’s best interests for her to return to the care home. Mrs Y continues to live in the care home.

My findings

  1. From the evidence I have seen, the Council responded appropriately to Mrs X’s concerns about her mother, Mrs Y. It followed safeguarding procedures and took the correct steps to ensure Mrs Y was safe and properly looked after.
  2. This was balanced with Mrs Y’s wishes to see her husband and to return home to stay and visit on several occasions. This was deemed to be in her best interests. The Council has demonstrated it put suitable safeguards in place to ensure Mrs Y’s safety. This included supervised visits and the requirement for live-in care. When this did not work, the Council was quick to remove Mrs Y and place her back in the care home.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have completed my investigation. I consider the Council to have taken appropriate steps to safeguard Mrs Y. I have found no fault with its actions.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

  1. The law says, we cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. On 1 April 2019, the first Court of Protection hearing regarding Mrs Y took place. We are not able to investigate what decisions were made after this time as this is out of our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings