Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in the decisions to place Mr B’s partner in a care home and keep her there. Any concerns Mr B has about mental capacity assessments or best interests decisions completed and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation in place can be considered by the Court of Protection.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the Council’s role in the best interests decision to place his partner, Ms C in a care home when she was discharged from hospital. Mr B said the Council lied about Ms C’s mental capacity to make decisions about her care and support arrangements. He also says it is keeping Mrs C in the care home against her will as it claims to have a standard Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisation in place. Mr B feels the Council is infringing on his right to family life and wants Ms C to leave the care home so she can return to live with him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. We will not investigate this complaint as it is reasonable to expect Mr B to wait for the Court of Protection to consider the matter as necessary. Ms C was in hospital and discharged to the care home in line with a best interests decision the Council was involved in. The Council said an independent doctor completed a capacity assessment and found Ms C had a cognitive impairment and did not have capacity to decide about her care and support arrangements.
7. The Council told Mr B a standard DoLS was in place to prevent Ms C from leaving the care home for her own safety. As part of the DoLS process Ms C had a Relevant Person’s Representative (RPR) in place who would consider Ms C’s views and the views of others such as Mr B in relation to the DoLS authorisation. If necessary, the RPR could request a review of the DoLS authorisation and provide support for Ms C to make an application to Court of Protection to get the authorisation changed or amended. Mr B can also ask the Court of Protection to consider the matter directly.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect him to wait for the Court of Protection to consider the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman