Summary: Mr X complains about inadequate record keeping and poor responses to requests for information by two mental health providers. In addition, Mr X complains about failings in the process of applying for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. We will not investigate the complaint because parts are late, parts have already been considered by the courts, parts would be better considered elsewhere and it would be too soon to consider other issues.

The complaint

1. Mr X was detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (the MHA) as an inpatient of Cygnet Fountains from 2020 to 2021. He then moved to Malsis Hall, still under detention. Mr X’s care was funded by the NHS throughout this time. In 2023 Mr X’s detention ended and he remained in Malsis Hall accommodation. Blackpool Borough Council (the Council) and NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board (the ICB) then became responsible for his aftercare under s117 of the MHA.
2. Mr X complains that:
1. Cygnet Fountains intentionally withheld some of his money when he transferred to Malsis House.
2. Malsis Hall failed to create and maintain accurate records of his finances while he was a resident.
3. Malsis Hall failed to provide him with accurate, authentic records of his accounts.
4. Between May and November 2023, Malsis Hall failed to provide him with items from the kitchen which they provided before May and did again from November (tea, coffee, milk and bread). Further, Mr X complains Malsis Hall failed to explain why this change occurred.
5. Malsis Hall failed to increase his £50 a week food budget in the face of high food inflation, and has failed to adequately answer his questions about how the residents’ £50‑a‑week food budget is funded.
6. Malsis Hall has been unable to provide a solution to problems he faces in safely using his weekly food budget to buy his own groceries at a fair price. In relation to this, Mr X said that when staff shop on his behalf they fail to buy all the items he requests.
7. Malsis House failed to comply with Subject Access Requests he made to them.
8. A best interests assessor interviewed him in May 2023 but failed to produce and/or share a report of her findings.
9. A psychiatrist appointed, in June 2023, as part of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards assessment process made unreasonable and unsubstantiated diagnoses of his mental health.
10. Staff at Malsis Hall gave him incorrect information that he needed to pay close to £400 to challenge an authorisation for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards at the Court of Protection.
11. Malsis Hall, acting on the instructions of the police, has, since early 2023, harassed him on a daily basis through noise invasion. Mr X said staff and other residents at his placement are deliberately and systematically harassing him with noise by stomping loudly on stairs and setting off fire alarms.
12. As of late February 2024, he had been without hot water in his bathroom since mid‑December 2023 and nothing had been done to repair it.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. We use the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If there has been fault, we consider whether it has caused injustice or hardship (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(1) and Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended).
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something an organisation has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 9(4).)
5. 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 and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 4(1b))
6. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a review or appeal.

7. (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(2) and Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered the written information Mr X provided. I considered papers the relevant organisations provided to us.
9. I considered LGSCO’s Assessment Code.
10. I shared a confidential draft copy of this provisional decision with Mr X and considered the comments he provided in response.

What I found

11. Mr X was admitted to Cygnet Fountains in April 2020. He remained there until July 2021 when he transferred to Malsis Hall. In February 2023 his detention under the MHA ended and Mr X remained in Malsis Hall accommodation.
12. In May 2023 Malsis Hall applied for standard authorisation for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) for Mr X, and implemented urgent DoLS. The urgent DoLS lasted until the end of the month. The Council did not authorise the application for standard DoLS.

Complaint (a)

13. Mr X moved from Cygnet Fountains to Malsis Hall in July 2021. Mr X took some money with him. It appears that Cygnet Fountains sent more of Mr X’s money to Malsis Hall in September 2021, or around that time. It is difficult to know exactly when Mr X became aware of his concerns about Cygnet Fountains not having sent all his money when he left. However, Mr X said he made a formal request for a copy of his accounts in September 2022 which suggests he had some concerns by this point, at the latest. As such, this complaint is late.
14. The Ombudsmen would need to rely on any records that were made about Mr X’s accounts and finances at the time. From the papers I have seen to date there is no significant outstanding financial injustice relating to this issue; Cygnet Fountains sent an additional payment. In addition, they have advised that they are willing to make a further payment if Mr X considers this appropriate. The outstanding injustice – Mr X’s frustration at the initial error – is not sufficiently severe to warrant setting the time limit aside. Further, considering the evidence that it likely to be available, it is unlikely that the Ombudsmen would be able to produce a sound and meaningful decision about this issue.

Complaints (c) and (g)

15. The Information Commissioner’s Office (the ICO) is the UK's independent body set up to uphold information rights. It can consider complaints from members of the public about any problems they have experienced in accessing personal information from an organisation. They can also consider complaints about how organisations handled personal information.
16. The ICO would be best placed to consider Mr X’s complaints about how organisations created and maintained records about him, and about how they responded to Subject Access Requests.

Complaints (b), (d), (e), (f), (j), (k) and (l)

17. Malsis hall advised the Ombudsmen that it has not logged any complaints from Mr X. We will not generally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the matter has been brought to the relevant organisation’s attention and that organisation has had a reasonable opportunity to investigate and reply to the complaint. As such, it would be too soon for the Ombudsmen to consider these complaints. Mr X should make a formal complaint to Malsis Hall in the first instance.

Complaints (h) and (i)

18. Mr X applied to the Court of Protection to appeal the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards process. The Court of Protection has expertise in assessing mental capacity and associated decisions and could change the relevant decision. As such, the Ombudsmen will not consider these issues as Mr X chose to use a suitable alternative legal remedy.

Back to top

Decision

19. I intend closed this case on the basis that:

• parts of the complaint have been made too late and there is no good reason to set the time limit aside;
• parts of the complaint would be more appropriately considered by the ICO;
• a remedy for parts of the complaint has already been sought through a reasonable alternative legal remedy; and,
• it would be too soon to consider other aspects of the complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsmen

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman