Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a Council’s handling of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This is because there is no evidence of significant injustice to Miss X or her late mother to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about Trafford Council (the Council) and its handling of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding (DoLS) applications for her mother, Mrs Y. Miss X says the Council did not explain information about this to her. Miss X also complained the Council did not share a later copy of a DoLS assessment with her.
2. Miss X says there was a delay in the Council sending her the paperwork and because she did not understand what she was agreeing to, she did not sign the form. She then discovered she would not have been able to act as the Relevant Person’s Representative (RPR) for Mrs Y.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (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 Miss X.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The DoLS provide legal protection for individuals who lack mental capacity to consent to care or treatment and live in a care home, hospital or supported living accommodation. The DoLS protect people from being deprived of their liberty, unless it is in their best interests and there is no other less restrictive alternative.
6. It is the role of the RPR to represent the person who has been deprived of liberty in all relevant matters. This can include: appealing against a DoLS authorisation, requesting a review, ensuring least restrictive practices are in place or raising a complaint.
7. The Council’s complaint response said it explained the PRP role to Miss X and provided an extract from the records to evidence this. However, it did also apologise if Miss X was left with doubts and uncertainty about the PRP role following these discussions.
8. The Council acknowledged it did not share the DoLS paperwork following an assessment 12 months later. It explained this was because it had a backlog and was prioritising urgent cases for authorisation and it considered Mrs Y was settled and therefore not high priority. The Council apologised to Miss X for the delay.
9. It appears there were delays and the Council did not follow up on some paperwork. However, the Council explained there were no issues with Mrs Y not wanting to stay at the care home and she was settled there. Any fault with the process with either the RPR or DoLS assessment a year later, did not therefore cause Mrs Y any injustice. I appreciate this has been frustrating for Miss X and this has caused her worry about what might have happened, but fortunately nothing did happen in terms of challenges to DoLS. There was therefore no significant injustice that would warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the Council’s actions did not cause Mrs Y or Miss X a significant enough injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman