Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) assessments for his mother, Mrs Y. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council’s complaint responses nor can we achieve anything further for Mr X or Mrs Y.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of various Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) assessments for his mother, Mrs Y, since the end of 2023 when she was discharged from hospital into a care home following a fall. Mr X believes the Council failed to provide him with relevant information about the DoLS assessments for his mother and has made promises it has not kept. He says the Council’s involvement has caused him and his mother significant distress as it told Mrs Y she could return to her own home and now it is unsafe for her to do so.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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 and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council has provided Mr X with detailed complaint responses. These show the Council completed a thorough review of its case records and it has acknowledged its communication with Mr X could have been better on some occasions. The Council has apologised to Mr X for the times when it did not provide clear information to him. It has explained why it was not able to share some information with him about Mrs Y’s DoLS assessment when she was deemed to have capacity. The Council has also explained at length why it had to respect Mrs Y’s wish to return to her own home when she was deemed to have capacity.
5. There is nothing more we could add or achieve for Mr X or Mrs Y by investigating this matter further. The Council has already apologised for the times when its communication with Mr X could have been better, and this is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. The Council appears to have been acting in Mrs Y’s best interests and respecting her right to choose where she wanted to live while she had capacity to express those wishes. Mrs Y’s presentation and capacity status changed before the Council could complete any arrangements for her to return to her own home, which understandably caused her distress. There is however no evidence to suggest this distress was caused by any fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not make a different finding or add to the Council’s responses even if we investigated.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman