Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her daughter, Ms Y’s, care by Central Bedfordshire Council and East London NHS Foundation Trust. We will not consider Mrs X’s complaint about Ms Y’s mental capacity assessment as this is contrary to Ms Y’s wishes. The Council and the Trust have accepted errors with Ms Y’s care and have put improvements in place. Further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve more.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains on behalf of her adult daughter, Ms Y, about a mental capacity assessment completed by a Community Mental Health Team (CMHT). The CMHT is a joint health and social care team including staff from Central Bedfordshire Council (the Council) and East London NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). Mrs X complains the CMHT failed to carry out Ms Y’s assessment properly, which resulted in Ms Y’s Deputy being discharged. She also complains about the Trust’s complaint handling, including failure to take steps to protect Ms Y after procedural failings were identified.
2. As a result, Mrs X says Ms Y has lost over £10,000 due to lack of financial support and she continues to be at risk.
3. Mrs X would like to feel assured that Ms Y’s capacity has been properly assessed and for the Deputyship reinstated, if appropriate. Mrs X and Ms Y are also seeking systemic changes to protect other vulnerable people in a similar position.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

4. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and Health Service Ombudsman have the power to jointly consider complaints about health and social care. (Local Government Act 1974, section 33ZA, as amended, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA).
5. 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

6. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X, Ms Y and the Trust as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mrs X and Ms Y had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

9. Ms Y has mental health needs and a learning disability.
10. The Court of Protection is a specialist court established by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (the Act) to make decisions on behalf of people who lack the mental capacity to make specific financial or personal welfare decisions for themselves. 
11. The Court of Protection appointed a Deputy to manage Ms Y’s finances. A Deputy is a person or professional appointed by the court to make decisions on behalf of someone who lacks the mental capacity to do so themselves. For several years, a different council acted as her Deputy.
12. In late 2023, Ms Y moved to Central Bedfordshire. Her care and Deputyship transferred to the Council.
13. Ms Y asked to have her financial management reviewed. In November 2024, a social worker from the CMHT completed a mental capacity assessment in relation to Ms Y’s ability to manage her finances. The assessment found Ms Y had mental capacity to make financial decisions. The Council notified the Court of Protection.
14. In April 2025, the Court of Protection discharged Ms Y’s Deputyship. Ms Y was also discharged from the CMHT around the same time, due to improvements with her mental health.
15. Shortly afterwards, Mrs X became aware of the change of circumstances and complained to the Trust. She disagreed with the outcome of the mental capacity assessment and felt Ms Y still needed support with her finances. In July 2025, the Trust replied to Mrs X, saying the mental capacity assessment had been carried out correctly.
16. Mrs X submitted further complaints to the Trust, raising concerns about the way the mental capacity assessment had been carried out. She said it was rushed and failed to gather all the relevant information. Mrs X maintained her concerns about Ms Y’s capacity to manage her finances. She also complained that her further complaints had been dealt with by the same person.
17. In October 2025, the Trust sent its final complaint response to Mrs X. The Trust agreed insufficient historical evidence had been gathered from other professionals who knew Ms Y well. The Trust said that, while the mental capacity assessment had followed the principles of the Act, there were shortcomings, such as inadequate consideration of Ms Y’s learning disabilities. The Trust also acknowledged there should have been consideration around whether additional support should have been implemented for Ms Y, such as skill development and financial management strategies.
18. The Trust told Mrs X it would put several changes in place such as ensuring historical information is sought from all services involved with a person, including consulting learning disabilities teams where appropriate. The Trust also said that following any change in care planning, such as financial management, appropriate support would be offered. The Trust said it had followed its complaint process correctly but agreed it may have been appropriate to have allocated Mrs X’s further complaints to a different member of staff. The Trust apologised for shortcomings in its service and any distress this caused.
19. Mrs X replied that she did not consider the matter resolved as no direct action had been taken to support Ms Y with her ongoing financial difficulties.

Analysis

Mental Capacity Assessment

20. Mrs X complains about the way the CMHT carried out Ms Y’s mental capacity assessment. She complains that the Trust failed to take all the relevant information into account and left her with no support. She is concerned that the wrong decision may have been made, leaving Ms Y and her finances in an ongoing vulnerable situation.
21. I have no doubt that Mrs X is acting in what she believes to be Ms Y’s best interests and wants to be assured that her daughter is receiving adequate support. However, her views on this matter do not align with Ms Y’s views.
22. Ms Y provided consent for Mrs X to bring this complaint on her behalf. However, when I spoke with Ms Y, she told me that she felt the assessment had been a bit rushed but ultimately reached the right decision.
23. If we looked at the way the mental capacity assessment was completed, a potential outcome would be to ask the organisations to take the decision again. Ms Y has confirmed that she would not want this to happen.
24. Ms Y has capacity to make decisions about her complaint. We cannot practically look at Mrs X’s concerns which partially conflict with Ms Y’s wishes. Therefore, we will not look at this part of the complaint.
25. Mrs X is unhappy with this decision. She feels we are giving determinative weight to Ms Y’s views, who has a learning disability, and treating Ms Y’s preference as capacity.
26. The Act applies to people who may lack mental capacity to make certain decisions. Both the Act and the relevant Code of Practice (the Code) start by presuming individuals have capacity unless there is proof to the contrary. The Code says all practicable steps should be taken to support individuals to make their own decisions before concluding someone lacks capacity.
27. We must presume a person has capacity unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise. Ms Y’s learning disability does not automatically mean she lacks the capacity to make specific decisions. I have seen nothing to suggest that Ms Y lacks the capacity to decide what complaint she wishes to bring to the Ombudsmen.
28. Mrs X believes Ms Y has shown she lacks capacity to make financial decisions by spending £10,000 in five weeks. The Code says people who make unwise decisions should not automatically be treated as not being able to make decisions. Someone can have capacity and still make unwise decisions.
29. If Mrs X has concerns Ms Y is at risk of ongoing financial harm, she would need raise these concerns with the Council’s safeguarding team.

The Court of Protection

30. The Court of Protection deals with decision-making for adults who may lack capacity to make specific decisions for themselves. The Court of Protection may need to become involved in particularly difficult cases or cases where there are disagreements that cannot be resolved in any other way. The Court of Protection:

• decides whether a person has capacity to make a particular decision for themselves;
• makes declarations, decisions or orders on financial or welfare matters affecting people who lack capacity to make such decisions; and
• appoints deputies to make decisions for people lacking capacity to make those decisions.

31. The Court of Protection made the decision to discharge Ms Y’s Deputy. As part of this decision, the Court would have seen the mental capacity assessment, including what information was considered as part of the process. As the Court has already accepted the mental capacity assessment, we would be unlikely to look at it. We usually would not investigate if we think the issues have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))
32. If Mrs X has ongoing concerns about Ms Y’s capacity to manage her finances, the Court of Protection is the right place to test Ms Y’s mental capacity and decision making.

Lack of support after discharge

33. Ms Y told me she felt unsupported when she was discharged from the CMHT and regained control of her finances. She said she would have found some financial planning guidance helpful at the time. Ms Y feels she has good control of her finances now and does not currently need any specific support. However, she would like changes to ensure this does not happen to other vulnerable people.
34. The Trust has recognised fault with its action and put in place several systemic changes to improve services in the future. This is the outcome sought by Ms Y. The Trust has provided evidence of these improvements and I am satisfied with the steps it has taken. Any further investigation by us is unlikely to achieve more.
35. Mrs X is concerned that, while the Trust has accepted errors and made general changes, no further action has been taken to support Ms Y. The Trust has recently offered Ms Y a general assessment via a new CMHT, which would include financial management. While it may have been helpful for the Trust to have offered this earlier, Ms Y has access to explore additional support if she wishes. Again, further investigation by us is unlikely to achieve more.

Complaint handling

36. Mrs X is unhappy with the way the Trust handled her complaint, for example, allocating her further complaints to the same person who had responded previously.
37. The Trust has already acknowledged that it could have handled Mrs X’s complaint differently and told us it will ensure consideration is given to how complaints are allocated, considering the individual circumstances and complexities of the case. We will not investigate this part of the complaint as the Trust has accepted fault and taken reasonable steps to put things right.

Back to top

Decision

38. There is no basis for the Ombudsmen to investigate the complaint. We will not consider Mrs X’s concerns about the mental capacity assessment as this is not in line with Ms Y’s views and the Court of Protection considered the assessment as part of its decision to discharge the Deputy. The Trust has accepted fault and has put improvements in place. Further investigation by the Ombudsmen is unlikely to add meaningfully to the work the organisations have already done.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman