Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about misinformation given to the hospital, and about the care support of a relative. Decisions around the relative’s care and the complainant’s status to be involved in the decision making are with the Court of Protection. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider concerns of accuracy of personal data. So, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable from an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms D says the Council misinformed the hospital where her relative Ms E was staying. This misinformation meant the hospital did not involve Ms D and that Ms E was placed in a care home far away.

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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council said it cannot consider Ms D’s complaint because the Court of Protection (COP) is considering the same matters. The Council referred Ms D’s Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act to its relevant team.
6. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome. We would not consider issues the court is considering. The COP is the relevant body to decide Ms D’s status to be involved in decisions about Ms E’s care, any dispute about Ms E’s capacity, and to decide where Ms E should live. Whether Ms D should have been involved at the time of the placement does not now affect the outcome, so there is no worthwhile outcome achievable from an Ombudsman investigation.
7. Ms D says the Council gave out wrong information about her. Ms D has made a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act which can find out the information the Council had. You also have a right to ask for data to be corrected, ‘the right to rectification’. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights. The ICO is better placed to consider Ms D’s concerns about the accuracy of the data the Council held, the use of that data, and having any inaccurate data corrected.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Ms D’s complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable from an investigation. The Court of Protection is already considering issues about Ms D’s status to be involved in the decision making around Ms E’s care. The COP can also consider any dispute about Ms E’s capacity and about where Ms E should live. The ICO is better placed to consider the accuracy of Ms D's personal data and to have any inaccurate data corrected.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman