Summary: There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it conducted assessments of Mr Y care and accommodation needs, and his capacity to decide about contact with Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council is preventing him from having contact with his uncle, Mr Y.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have:
• considered the complaint submitted by Mr X;
• considered the correspondence between Mrs X and the Council, including the Council’s response to his complaint;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the responses;
• taken account of relevant legislation;
• offered Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this document, and considered the comments made.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014

5. The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 (the 2014 Regulations) set out the requirements for safety and quality in care provision. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) issued guidance in March 2015 on meeting the regulations (the Guidance.). We consider the 2014 Regulations and the Guidance when determining complaints about poor standards of care.

The Care Act 2014

6. Section 42 of the Care Act 2014 says a council must make necessary enquiries if it has reason to think a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has needs for care and support which mean he or she cannot protect himself or herself. It must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse or risk.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Code of Practice to the Mental Capacity Act

7. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is the framework for acting and deciding for people who lack the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves. The Act (and the Code of Practice 2007) describes the steps a person should take when dealing with someone who may lack capacity to make decisions for themselves.
8. A key principle of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is that any act done for, or any decision made on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be in that person’s best interests. Section 4 of the Act provides a checklist of steps that decision makers must follow to determine what is in a person’s best interests. The decision maker must also consider if there is a less restrictive choice available that can achieve the same outcome.

Key facts

9. The Council has requested the Ombudsman deal with the information supplied during the course of this investigation under section 32(3) of the Local Government Act 1974. Section (32(3) prohibits the disclosure of information obtained during the course of an investigation. This means I unable to share the information with Mr X or go into any detail in this statement.
10. Mr X can be reassured that I have considered all the Council’s records objectively and given careful consideration to the issues he raised.
11. Mr Y is in his eighties. The Council’s records show concerns about his wellbeing, and involvement of the safeguarding team in 2023. At the time, he was deemed to have capacity to understand and make decisions about his care and accommodation needs. He also stated he considered Mr X as his next-of-kin. Involvement from the safeguarding team ceased.
12. In 2024, Mr Y became unwell and was admitted to hospital. During the stay, it became apparent his ability to make informed choices about his care and accommodation needs had changed. As a result, the Council re-assessed his needs and completed a mental capacity assessment in respect of his care and accommodation needs. Mr Y was deemed to lack capacity to both understand and make such decisions, so the Council, and along with a family member, took a best interest decision that Mr Y’s needs would be best met in a residential care home.
13. Mr Y was discharged from hospital into a residential care home.
14. The Council refused to tell Mr X of the whereabouts of Mr Y or provide him with information about his wellbeing. Mr X says he and Mr Y were previously close and he is upset at being excluded from his life.
15. Mr X submitted a formal complaint to the Council in March 2024. The Council responded in writing on 20 May 2024. It set out and responded to each point of complaint, and concluded by saying that in the absence of relevant legal authority or capacitated consent from Mr Y it was unable to disclose Mr Y’s whereabouts or share personal information about him.
16. Mr X was dissatisfied and asked the Council to review the complaint. The complaint was reviewed by a different officer, but the outcome was unchanged. The officer wrote to Mr X on 20 June 2024 informing of the outcome.
17. The Council visited Mr Y in January 2025 to confirm his wishes regarding visits from Mr X and to conduct a risk assessment about the same. The outcome concluded it was not in Mr Y’s best interest to have contact with Mr X.

Analysis

18. I have found no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Mr Y’s care and accommodation arrangements. It acted properly and in accordance with the law.
19. I can confirm all documentation relating to safeguarding of Mr X in 2024 was completed properly and in accordance with the law.
20. I have found no evidence of fault in the Council’s assessment of Mr Y’s capacity to decide his care and accommodation needs in 2024. It acted properly, and in accordance with the law.
21. The Council followed the correct process in assessing Mr Y’s capacity to decide about contact with Mr X in 2024 & 2025. It acted properly and in accordance with the law.
22. As there is no fault in the way the Council made decisions about Mr Y’s care and accommodation needs, and whom he should have contact with, I cannot criticise the decisions made.

Back to top

Final decision

23. There is no evidence of fault by the Council in the way it conducted assessments of Mr Y care and accommodation needs, and his mental capacity to decide about contact with Mr X.
24. It is on this basis; the complaint will be closed.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman