Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to safeguard her mother, Ms Y, who currently lives in sheltered accommodation. Mrs X said the Council did not properly consider whether Ms Y was able to make decisions about where she wanted to live and her care and support needs. We ended our investigation as the Council had investigated the concerns and offered an appropriate remedy for the distress and frustration caused by the faults identified. It would be unlikely to achieve anything more with a further investigation. In addition, the Council has not had the opportunity to consider Mrs X’s new complaints.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to safeguard her mother, Ms Y, who currently lives in sheltered accommodation. Mrs X said the Council did not properly consider whether Ms Y had the mental capacity to make decisions about where she wanted to live and her care and support needs. Mrs X said as a result, Ms Y is not safe from the risk of harm living in her current accommodation. It has caused Mrs X and her husband distress and they have had to take time off from work to deal with the matter.
2. Mrs X wants the Council to acknowledge it is at fault and move Ms Y to suitable accommodation. She also wants the Council to apologise to her and provide her with a financial remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke with Mrs X and considered information she provided.
6. I considered information provided by the Council.
7. I considered our ‘Guidance on remedies’.
8. Mrs X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Mental capacity assessment

9. A person aged 16 or over must be presumed to have capacity to make a decision unless it is established they lack capacity. A person should not be treated as unable to make a decision:
• because they make an unwise decision;
• based simply on: their age; their appearance; assumptions about their condition, or any aspect of their behaviour; or
• before all practicable steps to help the person to do so have been taken without success.
10. The council must assess someone’s ability to make a decision when that person’s capacity is in doubt. How it assesses capacity may vary depending on the complexity of the decision.

Safeguarding

11. A council must make enquiries if it thinks a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has care and support needs which mean the person cannot protect themselves. (section 42, Care Act 2014)

Care assessments

12. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support.

Background

13. For the past ten years, Ms Y has lived in sheltered accommodation which is owned and managed by a housing provider. Approximately three years ago, the Council started to fund a care package for Ms Y to receive care and support at home.

What happened

14. In September 2024, Mrs X complained to the Council and said:
• her mother’s mental and physical health had declined rapidly;
• she was concerned the sheltered accommodation was not safe for her mother;
• the Council had failed to address the amount of falls she had experienced in her home; and
• she had approached her mother’s Social Worker with her concerns however, the Social Worker’s response was inappropriate and insensitive.
15. Mrs X wanted the Council to move her mother into accommodation which was suitable for her needs. She also wanted the Council to investigate the Social Worker and provide her with an apology for their response.
16. In October 2024, the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint. As part of its response, the Council:
• recognised Ms Y was vulnerable and had care and support needs. However, Ms Y wished to remain in her current accommodation. The Council said as Ms Y was able to decide where she wanted to live, the Council had to continue supporting her until she was not able to make such decisions. The Council said it had referred Ms Y to the Mental Health Assessment Team for it to assess Ms Y’s mental capacity;
• said Ms Y had displayed challenging and inappropriate behaviour towards the care workers. As a result, the Council had to make some changes to Ms Y’s care package by sending in two care workers at a time for all her care calls;
• said although Ms Y wished to remain in her current accommodation, she had agreed with the Council to view supported living housing (supported living is housing where care and support services can be provided to help people live independently. Generally, supported living providers have at least one staff member on site 24 hours a day to respond to any emergencies); and
• apologised to Mrs X on behalf of the Social Worker for their poor communication.
17. In December 2024, Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman. She also submitted her complaint to the Council. In her complaint she said:
• Ms Y was clearly losing her mental capacity. She wanted to know on what basis the Council decided her mother had the mental capacity to make specific decisions;
• Ms Y had caused a fire in her home which supported Mrs X’s belief the accommodation was not suitable for her. Mrs X reiterated she wanted the Council to move her mother into suitable accommodation for her needs;
• the Council was aware her mother displayed challenging behaviour. There was an incident where Ms Y had attacked care workers and it resulted in the police attending her home. The Council had not considered safeguarding matters or assessments to establish whether the accommodation was suitable for Ms Y; and
• Ms Y was subject to financial abuse. She said her mother was frequently short of money. The housing provider also witnessed Ms Y getting into an unknown vehicle to go to the bank to withdraw money from her account. Mrs X said she had told the Council about this and the Council was dismissive in response.
18. In February 2025, the Council responded to Mrs X’s further complaint and said:
• as part of its investigation, it had reviewed the care assessments it had completed with Ms Y between March 2023 and March 2024. It said it had changed Ms Y’s package of care in response to the assessment concluding her increased care and support needs. In January 2025, Ms Y had asked the Council to increase her care calls further which the Council was looking into. The Council said it was working with Ms Y to ensure her care and support needs were met;
• in addition to the care assessments, it had visited Ms Y 12 times in her home in the last two years. The visits were from social workers and occupational therapists who had provided equipment to Ms Y to help her live as independently as possible. However, the Council found it had not referred Ms Y to the falls clinic;
• it had made multiple offers to Ms Y to move to alternative accommodation however she had declined all offers;
• it had completed a mental capacity assessment with Ms Y in December 2024 which established she had the capacity to make decisions about where she wanted to live and her care and support need. However, It accepted there was insufficient recording of her mental capacity up to this point;
• Ms Y did not cause a fire in her home. Instead, she had caused extensive smoke in her home when she had used the cooker to cook food. The Council said the fire rescue team had attended the property and isolated the cooker. The care workers now arranged meals for Ms Y. However, the Council said it could have raised a safeguarding alert at the time of the incident;
• it reiterated it was aware Ms Y’s behaviour could be challenging and due to health and safety reasons, the Council had arranged for two care workers to attend all care calls; and
• it was currently investigating the allegations of financial abuse under safeguarding procedures.
19. The Council also told Mrs X it recognised staff had poorly communicated with her and it had identified training and development needs with staff. It partially upheld her complaint, apologised to Mrs X and offered her £500 for the distress and frustration the matters had caused her.
20. In addition, the Council told Mrs X it would carry out specific actions following her complaint which including sharing with her the details of her mother’s new social worker and providing her with updates following specific regular meetings about her mother.
21. In August 2025, I spoke with Mrs X about her complaint. Mrs X said she had accepted the Council’s remedy of the apology and symbolic payment. She said the Council had made some progress and it was now looking into moving Ms Y into accommodation which would provide her with higher care and support as she had received a diagnosis of dementia.
22. However, Mrs X said in April 2025, she became aware of potential further financial abuse of Ms Y. Mrs X said she was left with uncertainty over whether, if the Council responded to her concerns of financial abuse sooner, this could have been prevented. Mrs X also said the Council had failed to update her after regular meetings with Ms Y.

Back to top

Analysis

23. I decided to end my investigation. This is because the Council had investigated Mrs X’s complaint and offered her a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by the faults identified. It would be unlikely to achieve anything more with a further investigation.
24. Mrs X raised concerns about more recent financial abuse of Mrs Y and the Council’s failure to keep her updated. These matters are new and the Council has not had the opportunity to consider them. The Council said it was currently conducting a safeguarding investigation into the allegations of financial abuse. We would not be able to consider this matter until the Council has completed its safeguarding investigation. If Mrs X is dissatisfied with the Council’s safeguarding investigation once it is completed, it is open to her to complain to the Council and then to us.

Back to top

Final Decision

25. I have ended my investigation as I cannot achieve anything more with a further investigation. In addition, the Council has not had the opportunity to consider Mrs X’s new complaints.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman