Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care arrangements. The court decided the dispute over what was best, and the Ombudsman cannot question or criticise the court’s decision. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s actions and there is no worthwhile outcome from an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms D says the Council went against the advice of other professionals and decided her relative Ms E could live at home rather than needing residential care. Ms D believes this was not in Ms E’s best interests. Ms D says the Council has not answered her questions about certain issues, and says it has caused much stress and upset over the last two years. Ms D also complains the Council referred concerns about her actions as Ms E’s financial deputy to the Office of the Public Guardian causing further stress and upset. Ms D wants an apology and acknowledgement the treatment of Ms E was not acceptable. Ms E now lives in residential care as Ms D wished all along.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms E does not have capacity to decide about her care support and where she should live. The issues of complaint started in mid-2022 and Ms D made no complaint. Ms E’s situation has since changed and she does now live in residential care.
6. Where someone lacks capacity and there is a dispute about what is in their best interests, the Court of Protection (COP) will decide. I note the Council says the decision for Ms E to live at home was authorised by the COP. The Ombudsman has no powers to consider decisions made by the court.
7. Ms D was Ms E’s deputy for finances. This role is overseen by the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG). The Council was concerned decisions Ms D was making might not be in Ms E’s best interests, and so had a duty to report the concerns to the OPG. The Council has acknowledged this will have been stressful and upsetting for Ms D but has explained the reasons for its actions. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find enough evidence of fault. We cannot question or criticise the Council’s actions because someone disagrees with them, there must be fault in the process followed.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Ms D’s complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable. The main point of complaint is decisions about care arrangements in Ms E’s best interests. Such decisions were ultimately for the COP and not decisions the Ombudsman can question or criticise. We would not investigate solely to get answers for Ms D. It is unlikely we will find fault in the Council referring concerns to the OPG despite the upset it caused Ms D.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman