Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care services. The Council failed to invite the complainant to a best interests meeting; it has apologised and confirmed the actions it will take to improve future service. It is unlikely the Ombudsman could add to this investigation or reach a different outcome. The Court of Protection is better placed to consider a challenge to what is in the best interests of the person using the Council’s service (the complainant’s relative).

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council excluded him from information, meetings, and decisions about his relative (Ms C’s) adult social care support. Mr B says he has power of attorney for Ms C’s finances so should have been included. Ms C is now living permanently in a care home, and Mr B wants the Council to review this decision.

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 another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr B and his sister hold power of attorney to deal with Ms C’s finances. This allows them to act jointly or severally. That means the Council only needs to deal with one of them, not both. The Council expected Mr B’s sister to share information with him. When Mr B complained the Council confirmed it would send future correspondence to both Mr B and his sister. Mr B should tell the Council if there was any previous correspondence he needs a copy of.
7. Nobody holds power of attorney for Ms C’s health and welfare. The Council held a best interest meeting under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and decided Ms C needs to live in residential care. The Council failed to invite Mr B to the meeting and has apologised to him. The Council says it had already sought Mr B’s views, and it considered his views when reaching a decision.
8. Mr B is not happy with the outcome of the meeting and thinks Ms C could live at home with a care package to support her. Mr B misunderstood the Council’s information about Ms C permanently moving to residential care. The Ombudsman cannot say the outcome would be different had Mr B attended or his views properly told. Mr B can challenge the decision at the Court of Protection, and the court will decide what is in Ms C’s best interests.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it is unlikely we would add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome. The Council has accepted fault, apologised to Mr B, and explained the actions it will take to improve future service. We are satisfied with the actions it has taken in response to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman