Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s contacts with him connected to enquiries it made into his mother’s welfare. We do not uphold the complaint finding no fault in the Council’s actions connected to those enquiries. While there was some fault in the Council’s complaint handling we find any injustice has since been remedied by its actions.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant ‘Mr B’. His complaint concerns the Council’s contacts with him in connection with 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:

• made false accusations about Mrs C when it became involved in making enquiries into her welfare and care needs; this included a suggestion she had been found running naked down the street and that she had dementia;
• did not take account of his Lasting Power of Attorney to take health and welfare decisions on behalf of Mrs C and it did not take decisions in her best interests; in particular, it did not respect that Mrs C did not want care from domiciliary care workers coming into the home she shared with Mr B;
• it made a fictious missing person’s report.

2. Mr B says as a result of the above he has incurred unnecessary legal fees defending the false accusations. He 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 on a draft decision statement sent to Mr B and the Council where I set out my proposed findings on this complaint.

Back to top

What I found

Background and key facts

6. I have taken the beginning of events covered by this complaint as being July 2018. At that time Mr B had a home in the Council’s area. Mrs C had a home in another London Borough. Between July and September 2018, the Council received concerns from Mrs C’s GP surgery about her welfare.
7. The Council made some initial enquires using powers under Section 43 of the Care Act 2014 (for explanation see below). It made enquiries with the GP surgery and with the other London Borough where Mrs C kept a house. It also recorded trying to contact Mr B and Mrs C to discuss matters but without success. While one of its social workers did speak to Mrs C on one occasion, she did not indicate she wanted any help or support from the Council. It decided not to pursue enquiries as it concluded Mrs C did not live within its area. It knew the other authority was aware of concerns about Mrs C’s welfare. It considered that authority therefore had responsibility to decide if Mrs C needed safeguarding.
8. By January 2019, the Council understood Mrs C was now living with Mr B at his home. There continued to be concerns for her welfare. In February 2019, the Council agreed to call a multi-disciplinary meeting inviting various health professionals and representatives from the other London Borough. That meeting concluded it was appropriate to begin a more comprehensive safeguarding investigation under Section 43 of the Care Act. This was conducted jointly by both authorities.
9. The investigation focused on two areas:

• that following a recent hospital admission for Mrs C, Mr B had not co-operated with social workers from either local authority wanting to carry out an assessment of Mrs C’s social care needs; he had told both councils that he would commission a home care agency to support Mrs C when he was at work, but he had not done so; a worker from a rehabilitation team who visited Mrs C at Mr B’s home following her discharge had concerns for her health and safety based on her observations at that visit.
• that Mr B had discharged Mrs C from different hospitals on more than one occasion contrary to medical advice.

10. Later, the investigation also expanded to include consideration of Mr B’s actions in March 2019 when he took Mrs C abroad. The Council had a concern this decision was not in Mrs C’s best interests.
11. During its investigation, both councils shared records. The Council therefore became aware the other London authority had received multiple concerns about Mrs C’s welfare since 2017 which I summarise 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; on more than one occasion she locked herself in or out of her house and lost keys; the emergency services speculated Mrs C may have dementia or another cognitive impairment; a report made in June 2018 said Mrs C was “wandering in the street in the early hours of the morning while naked”;
• 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 in winter;
• they reported Mrs C appeared to have poor personal hygiene and sometimes inappropriately dressed for weather conditions; 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.

12. At the beginning of March 2019, the Council wrote to Mr B explaining why it had begun a safeguarding investigation. It summarised the earlier reports for Mrs C’s welfare summarised in paragraph 11 and reported one of those saying Mrs C “ran down the street naked”. It said that Mrs C had a cognitive impairment. It explained those concerns I have summarised in paragraph 9 in detail. It said it wanted to work with Mr B in helping to keep Mrs C safe in her own home. It asked for his co-operation in assessing Mrs C’s needs and her capacity to take decisions around her care within the next three working days. It noted that while Mr B held a lasting power of attorney (LPA) to take decisions on behalf of Mrs C, he still had to take decisions in her best interests. The Council said if Mr B did not co-operate then it would raise concerns with the Office of Public Guardian (OPG) who regulate LPAs.
13. Mr B was also in email communications with a Council social worker around this time who explained the Council wanted to assess Mrs C to discuss any help it could offer to them both. The social worker also told Mr B about the safeguarding investigation and that it had sent a letter to him about that. In response Mr B wrote that Mrs C was “medically unwell” and the Council should wait to see her when she had recovered. He also suggested concerns expressed for her wellbeing were maliciously motivated.
14. When Mr B did not respond to arrange an assessment, the Council attempted to visit Mrs C at his home. There was no reply. Nor could the other London Borough locate Mrs C at her house in that area. The Council alerted the police who recorded Mrs C as a missing person. It was only following police enquiries the Council learnt Mr B had taken Mrs C abroad.
15. In March 2019 Mr B made the first of several complaints to the Council. He said:

• it had not listened to Mrs C’s wishes; had not acted in her best interests and ignored her advance wishes; she had no cognitive impairment.
• that it had made a ‘fictitious’ missing person report to the police;
• that it was making safeguarding enquiries on the basis of allegations that were factually incorrect.

16. The Council acknowledged Mr B’s complaint. It said that it would not respond while there was an outstanding safeguarding investigation which would take precedence.
17. Mrs C remained abroad and passed away in May 2019.
18. In July 2019 Mr B made further complaint to the Council. He said the Council:

• had unreasonably challenged his right to make decisions on behalf of Mrs C given that he held a LPA;
• had behaved in a way that suggested it was bringing legal proceedings against him;
• had unnecessarily reported Mrs C as a missing person.

19. In response the Council:

• clarified it had contacted the OPG to discuss its concerns for his mother’s welfare in the light of information received;
• clarified it had not begun any legal proceedings;
• explained why it had contacted police as it had concerns Mrs C had been discharged from hospital contrary to medical advice and that it could not locate her.

20. In January 2020 Mr B contacted this office and after we alerted the Council, it provided a further reply to his complaint. It said:

• it did not diagnose medical conditions; information Mrs C had vascular dementia came from her GP;
• it had seen the police report in June 2018 saying Mrs C was reported naked outside her home in the other London Borough.

21. In July 2020 the Council sent a further letter to Mr B in reply to an email he sent. In this:

• it denied not giving Mr B a chance to put his ‘side of the story’ explaining attempts made to contact him in March 2019;
• it clarified the brief interaction between Mrs C and one of its social workers in July 2018;
• that its actions did not constitute any discrimination against him or Mrs C.

My findings

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. When I apply the above law and guidance to this case I am satisfied the Council’s involvement in Mrs C’s case was reasonable, proportionate and justified. I have reached this finding, seeing no reason for the Council not to have accepted reports it received raising concerns about Mrs C’s welfare in good faith. 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 2018 to justify some initial enquiries and by February 2019 it could reasonably initiate more detailed investigation given the nature, extent and consistency of reports made by multiple agencies having contact with Mrs C. This included the other London Borough, the police, the LAS and various health service organisations including her GP.
25. I find the Council was aware that Mr B held a LPA to make decisions in respect of Mrs C’s health and welfare. But as it explained to Mr B he still had to take decisions in Mrs C’s best interests. The Council explained why it had concerns some of Mr B’s decisions may not have been in Mrs C’s best interests. For example, the reports it received that Mr B discharged Mrs C from hospital against medical advice. While I am sure Mr B had his reasons for taking this course of action, my role is not to judge whether he was right or wrong in this. My role is instead to consider if the Council could reasonably make safeguarding enquiries in the context of her discharge from hospital against medical advice. I am satisfied it could.
26. I am further satisfied the Council explained its actions to Mr B and gave him opportunity to respond, which he did not take. I have seen only the briefest of explanations from Mr B about his actions. For example, he did not explain when and how Mrs C gave any advance instructions to him about her care; including not wanting any support at home when Mr B was at work. While the letter the Council sent Mr B in March gave him only a limited time to respond this too must be seen in the context of the authorities’ interest in his mother’s welfare over several months. During this time Mr B had provided only limited co-operation with enquiries made about his mother’s wellbeing.
27. Turning to the specific detail of what the Council put in its letter of March 2019 to Mr B, it did not diagnose that Mrs C had dementia or another mental health 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. I am satisfied what it told Mr B about its understanding of Mrs C’s cognitive impairment was correct.
28. I can also understand why the Council told Mr B it had seen reports of Mrs C running naked down the street. This was not strictly accurate as the report did not say Mrs C ran. But this was clearly not a relevant detail in explaining why the Council thought the report indicated concerns for Mrs C’s welfare. It has explained to Mr B where it saw the report and I have seen the same report, made to the other London Borough in June 2018. I do not find fault therefore in the Council paraphrasing the report with a minor inaccuracy.
29. I also make no criticism of the Council liaising with the police in March 2019 to find out Mrs C’s whereabouts. Mr B knew of the Council’s concern for her welfare. He was non co-operative with requests to arrange an assessment. He did not tell the Council he had taken Mrs C abroad even though he was in communication with it at the time they went abroad. Its contact with the police was proportionate in the circumstances.
30. That leaves me finally to consider the Council’s handling of Mr B’s complaints. Here I do find some fault. I can understand in March 2019 the Council wanted Mr B to engage with its safeguarding enquiries and to defer any reply to his complaint to await the outcome of that. I think that reasonable. However, the Council should have ensured some reply to the concerns Mr B first raised with it in March 2019 before he contacted our organisation.
31. This delayed Mr B receiving explanation for the Council’s comments in its letter of March 2019 that he had disagreed with. However, I do not think any further action merited given Mr B received that explanation in January 2020.

Final decision

32. 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. Or else the Council has remedied any injustice from its poor complaint handling.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman