Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. It is unlikely we would add to the Council’s investigation, find enough evidence of fault, or reach a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council ignored concerns about Ms C’s care and made decisions that were not in her best interests. Mr B says he was discriminated against on his sex; the Council accepted everything his sister said even though he holds power of attorney for Ms C’s health and welfare. The Council started action to remove Mr B’s power of attorney but then dropped the action. Mr B says this caused financial and emotional stress. Mr B felt the Council was working against him and that the quality of Ms C’s care was poor and led to decline in her health.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 is Ms C’s power of attorney for health and welfare. But the powers to make decisions for Ms C can only be used when she cannot make decisions for herself. The Council completed mental capacity assessments of each decision that was required of Ms C and found she could decide about her care, where to live, and who to see. The Council met with Ms C alone, so was satisfied these decisions were her own.
7. Ms C wanted to live at home, therefore the decision to return home from residential care was Ms C’s not the Council’s. If Mr B disagreed that Ms C had capacity to make this decision and felt it was not in her best interests, he could have challenged that in the Court of Protection.
8. Ms C lived at home for a year until her health declined and she moved to a nursing home. The Council says it received no concerns over the quality of Ms C’s care over this time.
9. The Council has explained to Mr B its reasons for removing his power of attorney, and then for stopping that action. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision making, even though Mr B disagrees with it. Mr B mentions the costs, but the court decided the amount the Council should pay Mr B for his costs so it is not something the Ombudsman can consider further.
10. Mr B mentions discrimination based on his sex. It is unlikely we will find evidence to support that, but Mr B could take legal advice about his options for a claim of discrimination.

Back to top

Final decision

11. It has been stressful for Mr B and he wanted the best support for Ms C. There have been disagreements about what was best. The Council’s duty is to meet Ms C’s care and support needs in the least restrictive way and considering her wishes. This is what the Council did. We would not be able to say the Council’s actions led to a decline in Ms C’s health. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find evidence of fault. The Council has given a thorough response, and it is unlikely we would add to that or achieve anything further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman