Summary: Miss A complains the Council did not properly manage her grandmother’s care. The Council did not follow its complaints process because it did not fully respond to Miss A’s complaint. This did not cause Miss A any injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss A, complains the Council has not dealt with her grandmother, Miss B’s, care properly because:
• It held a meeting about Miss B’s care which wasn’t arranged properly, personal information was disclosed during the meeting, reasonable adjustments were not made for Miss A and parts of her house were entered improperly.
• It did not investigate safeguarding concerns about Miss B’s care raised by Miss A both before and during the meeting.
• Miss A was harassed and victimised because of allegations against her.
• It has not calculated Miss B’s financial contribution to her care properly.
• it didn’t fully respond to all her complaint.
2. Miss A says she has suffered distress, anxiety and depression, a large sum of money has been stolen and she has been charged too much for care.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated that part of Miss A’s complaint about how the Council dealt with her complaints concerning her mother’s care. The final section of this statement contains my reasons for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have spoken to Miss A about her complaint and considered the information she has provided to the Ombudsman. I have also considered the Council’s response to her complaint and its response to my enquiries.
9. Miss A 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

Adult Safeguarding

10. Under Section 42 of the Care Act 2014, a council must make necessary enquiries if it has reason to think a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and that person has needs for care and support which mean he or she cannot protect himself or herself. It must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse or risk.

Statutory Guidance

11. Local authorities must ensure that a person’s income is not reduced below a specified level after charges have been deducted. The amounts are set out in the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations.
12. The purpose of the minimum income guarantee is to promote independence and social inclusion and ensure that they have sufficient funds to meet basic needs such as purchasing food, utility costs or insurance. This must be after any housing costs such as rent.

What happened

13. Miss B suffers from dementia. She lived in a house owned by Miss A. She received care at home from October 2019, which was delivered by Provider 1. A financial assessment was not completed at this time.
14. Miss B’s family said they were not happy with the care delivered by Provider 1. The Council changed care provider. Miss B’s care was delivered by Provider 2.
15. Miss A completed a financial assessment for Miss B and sent it to the Council. The Council were concerned about some of the financial information provided by Miss A. The Council made enquiries as a safeguarding matter.
16. During the safeguarding enquiries, the Council met with Miss B and other family members, further information was given to the Council and the police were called. The police took property from Miss A’s house as part of a criminal investigation.
17. The Council held another meeting to consider Miss B’s care.
18. The Council considered safeguarding referrals made by Miss A concerning care for Miss B by Provider 1 and Provider 2. It decided to take no further action.
19. Miss A complained to the Council in September 2020 and added safeguarding concerns to her complaint in October. The Council responded to Miss A’s complaint in November 2020. Miss A said she was unhappy with the response.
20. The care package delivered by Provider 2 was cancelled and the Council completed a s42 safeguarding investigation. The safeguarding investigation concluded the concerns were partially substantiated.
21. The Council sent Miss A its final complaint response in February 2021.

Analysis

Meetings about Miss B’s care

22. There were three visits to Miss B’s home, one in late June, one in early August and another in late August 2020.
23. Care notes show the Council arranged the first visit in June by telephone with Miss A, in order to review Miss B’s home care. Miss A gave her consent for the Council to visit Miss B with no other family present.
24. The notes also show the Council needed to assess whether Miss B had capacity to understand her financial transactions, when concerns were raised about financial information provided by Miss A.
25. Care records show the Council visited and spoke with Miss B, who confirmed the home care was working well. The Council identified that Miss B did not seem to have capacity to understand her finances. It also identified some issues with her home including electrical hazards.
26. The second visit involved safeguarding enquiries made following concerns about Miss B’s financial circumstances. Safeguarding documents show a family member raised concerns during the visit about the loft being a fire risk. On accessing the loft, the Council noted the presence of a hydroponics system and a quantity of money. The Police were called and they seized the money and other items from Miss B’s home.
27. Minutes of the third visit show it was arranged to discuss Miss B’s care needs and the safeguarding issues. The Council invited all family members as it had established that there was no lasting power of attorney held. Miss A attended the meeting in place of her mother, who lived abroad.
28. Miss A gave her consent to the first meeting. Given its concerns about Mis A in respect of Miss B’s finances, the Council could not inform Miss A prior to the second visit, as she was the alleged abuser. The third visit was arranged to ensure Miss B’s needs were being met and appropriate support was in place. All three visits were arranged and conducted appropriately under the circumstances. This is not fault by the Council.
29. There is no evidence that Miss A made any request for reasonable adjustments for the third meeting in late August. The Council could not consider reasonable adjustments if it had not been asked to make them. This is not fault by the Council.
30. During the second visit, further information about potential risks to Miss B were brought to the attention of the Council by a family member. The Council could not ignore this information and was right to look into the issues raised. This is not fault by the Council.

Safeguarding concerns from Miss A

31. Issues raised by Miss A about Provider 1 before May 2020 were relatively minor. Care notes show Miss A did not object to the corrective actions proposed and taken by the Council.
32. Care records appear to show it was Miss A who requested that the Council change care providers for Miss B in May 2020. When considering her request, the Council asked whether Miss A had made a safeguarding referral about Miss B’s care. Miss A said she had not, and her grandmother, Miss B, was fine.
33. The Council considered safeguarding concerns in respect of Provider 1 in August 2020. Safeguarding records show the Council decided that Miss B was not at risk because the care provider had already changed and recorded its decision appropriately. The Council was able to decide whether or not it needed to make enquiries. The Council’s decision that there was no need for enquiries was a professional merits decision. This is not fault by the Council.
34. The Council also considered issues in respect of Provider 2 in August 2020, after receiving a referral from the Care Quality Commission. The Council investigated, before closing the case in September 2020 and taking no further action. After Miss B made her complaint and raised further safeguarding issues, the Council again considered the safeguarding concerns about Provider 2. The Council decided in February 2021 that Miss B’s concerns were partly substantiated.

Allegations against Miss A

35. Care notes show the Council had safeguarding concerns based on financial evidence provided by Miss A, on behalf of Miss B. It established whether Miss B had capacity to deal with her finances and whether power of attorney was held.
36. Safeguarding documents show the Council then made a safeguarding referral and made s42 enquiries. The outcome of the safeguarding investigation was, on the balance of probabilities, that the concerns were fully substantiated.
37. The Council followed the right procedure when addressing safeguarding concerns against Miss A. This is not fault by the Council.

Financial contributions to care

38. I have seen copies of the financial assessments for Miss B. These show the Council made the proper allowance for the minimum income guarantee.
39. Miss A says allowance should be made for rent by Miss B. Miss A did not declare rent payments on the financial assessment form she provided to the Council. The Council has stated in its first complaint response that it is willing to consider details of rent paid if Miss A can provide information to show it is being paid. This is not fault by the Council.

Complaint handling

40. The Council has agreed it didn’t initially respond to all parts of Miss A’s complaint. This is fault by the Council. However, there was no significant ongoing injustice to Miss A or Miss B because the substantive complaints have not been upheld. The Council has apologised.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have found fault which did not cause injustice to Miss A or Miss B. I have now completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

42. I have not investigated the part of Miss A’s complaint about stolen money because this is a matter for the police.
43. I have not investigated the part of Miss A’s complaint about personal information being disclosed at a meeting. The Council has agreed there was a data breach and apologised. I see no good reason to investigate this further. This is a matter for the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman