Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in adult social care. This is because there is no evidence of a significant injustice to justify our involvement, and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome as the Council is reviewing the matter.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council did not appoint a suitable relevant persons representative (RPR) for his mother, Mrs C. Mr B says the RPR lives abroad so cannot visit regularly, so the relevant safeguards are not in place for Mrs C. Mr B says he is disgusted the proper process was not followed and has lost trust in the Council. Mr B says there is doubt over whether Mrs C’s care could have been less restrictive.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs C lives in a residential care home. Mrs C does not have mental capacity to consent to this care placement. So, it is necessary for the Council to follow the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) procedure to deprive Mrs C of her liberty and keep her in this care placement.
6. As part of the DoLS process Mrs C has a relevant persons representative (RPR). Part of the role of the RPR is to keep regular contact with Mrs C to oversee her situation. Mr B says the RPR has not been visiting regularly as they live abroad.
7. Mr B says this leaves doubt over whether Mrs C has been unreasonably restricted. But Mr B gives no examples of where Mrs C’s care has not been in her best interests, or of any significant impact on Mrs C.
8. I do not consider this uncertainty, or Mr B’s loss of trust in the Council, is a significant injustice to justify our resources to investigate. I note the Council is in the process of reviewing Mrs C’s DoLS authorisation, and therefore the RPR will be reviewed. This will relieve any doubt going forward. I do not consider that an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further for Mrs C.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not evidence of a significant injustice to justify our involvement, and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman