Summary: There was fault by the Council and a care home it commissioned: Mrs Y was deprived of her liberty without an authorisation, there was a failure to involve her attorney in a best interest meeting to decide on a new placement, a complaint response lacked detail and a private contract should not have been issued. This caused avoidable confusion, frustration and distress. The Council will apologise and make symbolic payments. It will also review procedures for assessing cases referred for deprivation of liberty assessments to ensure these take place within the required legal timeframes.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained in his own right and for his wife Mrs X that the Council:
1. Placed restrictions on their contact with their mother Mrs Y who lives in a care home which the Council commissions.
2. Cancelled a meeting to discuss the matter, delayed investigating their concerns about Mrs Y’s care and refused to share evidence.
2. Mr X said this caused distress and affected Mrs X’s mental health. He said it caused Mrs Y distress and a restriction on her freedom because she has been denied visits from him, private contact with Mrs X and trips out of the home with both of them.
3. Mr and Mrs X want the Council to move Mrs Y to a location agreed with them, allow unrestricted visits to the care home and trips out with them.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. I have investigated Mr and Mrs X’s complaints even though Mrs X can apply to the Court of Protection which can make orders about Mrs Y’s care and residence, including about visiting arrangements. It is not reasonable to expect Mrs X to do this because the Council said in writing that it will make the court application.
6. We normally name care homes and other care providers in our decision statements. However, we will not do so if we think someone could be identified from the name of the care home or care provider. I have not named the care homes in this case because I consider the complainant and their family would be identifiable. The Care Provider which owns the first care home is Barchester Healthcare and I have named it because it is a large provider with many homes and so naming it does not risk anyone’s privacy.
7. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
8. The Council commissioned Ms Y’s care under powers and duties in the Care Act 2014. We regard Barchester Healthcare (the Care Provider) as acting on behalf of the Council.
9. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
10. 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

11. I considered the complaint to us and the Council’s response to the complaint and documents in this statement. I discussed the complaint with Mr X. I considered comments from the Council and Mr X on a first draft of this statement.
12. Mr X, the Council and the Care Provider had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

13. A council must make enquiries if it thinks a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has care and support needs which mean the person cannot protect themselves. (Care Act 2014, section 42)
14. A safeguarding enquiry is the action taken by a council in response to a concern about abuse or neglect. An enquiry could range from a conversation with the person who is the subject of the concern, to a more formal multi-agency arrangement. A council must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance, Paragraph 14.77) The purpose is to establish whether or not the council or another body should do something to protect the adult. (Paragraph 14.78)
15. Care and Support Statutory Guidance says councils should keep care and support plans under review generally (Paragraph 13.11). It goes on to say councils should:
• Conduct a review if an adult or a person acting on the adult’s behalf makes a reasonable request for one. (Paragraph 13.20.) Explain why if deciding not to conduct a review (Paragraph 13.25)
• Carry out an immediate unplanned review if there is information or evidence to suggest circumstances have changed in a way that may affect the efficacy, appropriateness or content of the plan to see if the plan requires revision. For example, if the council receives a safeguarding alert. (Paragraph 13.19)
16. A Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) is a legal document, which allows a person (‘the donor’) to choose one or more persons to make decisions for them, when they become unable to do so themselves. The 'attorney' or ‘donee’ is the person chosen to make a decision on the donor’s behalf. Any decision has to be in the donor’s best interests. A Health and Welfare LPA gives the attorney(s) the power to make decisions about the person's health and personal welfare, such as day-to-day care, medical treatment, or where they should live.
17. A council must assess someone’s ability to make a decision when that person’s capacity is in doubt. (Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice Chapter 4)
18. Decisions taken for a person lacking mental capacity must be in their best interests. (Mental Capacity Act 2005 Section 1(5))
19. Schedule A1 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 establishes the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS). I have summarised the main paragraphs below:

• Where it appears a person in a hospital or care home is being deprived of their liberty and lacks capacity, the hospital or care home must request a standard authorisation. (Paragraph 24)
• To obtain a standard authorisation, the care home or hospital (‘the managing authority’) makes a request to a team in the council (‘the supervisory body’). The supervisory body then carries out six assessments to decide whether to approve the authorisation. (Paragraph 33)
• A managing authority can grant itself an urgent authorisation for up to seven days to allow for completion of a standard authorisation. (Paragraph 76)
• A supervisory body can grant or refuse an authorisation and it can make conditions including changes to a care plan to ensure there are fewer restrictions. It also sets a time limit for the authorisation. (Paragraphs 50 to 53)
• Once a supervisory body has approved a standard authorisation, it must appoint a relevant person’s representative (RPR) as soon as possible and practical to represent the person who has been deprived of their liberty. The RPR’s role is to represent and support the person in relation to the deprivation of liberty safeguards, including, if appropriate, triggering a review, using the complaints procedure or making an application to the Court of Protection. RPRs must have regular contact with the person. (Paragraphs 139-140)

20. Where a managing authority has granted itself an urgent authorisation, the process for a standard authorisation must be completed within the urgent authorisation period. (Regulation 13(2), the Mental Capacity (Deprivation of Liberty: Standard Authorisations Assessments and Ordinary Residence) Regulations 2008)
21. The Human Rights Act 1998 brought the rights in the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. Public bodies, including councils, must act in a way to respect and protect human rights. It is unlawful for a public body to act in a way which is incompatible with a human right. ‘Act’ includes a failure to act. (Human Rights Act 1998, section 6)
22. It is for the courts, and not for us, to decide whether a person’s human rights have been breached. We decide whether there has been fault causing injustice. Where relevant, we consider whether a council has acted in line with legal obligations in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. We may find fault where a council cannot evidence it had regard to a person’s human rights or if it cannot justify an interference with a qualified right.
23. Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) says everyone has the right not to be deprived of their liberty except in limited cases specified in the article. It is permissible to detain someone who is of ‘unsound mind’. There should be a proper legal basis for any detention. The DOLS are the legal process for detention.
24. Care homes must not deprive people of their liberty for the purpose of providing care or treatment, without lawful authority. (Regulation 13(5) Health and Social Care Regulated Activities Regulations 2014)
25. Article 8 of the ECHR says everyone has the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. It’s a qualified right which means it can be interfered with where there is a legitimate aim.
26. Guidance from the CQC on visiting rights in care homes has been in place since October 2016 and was updated in 2019. There are now new regulations and guidance on visiting, but these do not apply retrospectively. I have summarised relevant parts of the 2016/2019 CQC Guidance below:
• If a resident lacks mental capacity to make decisions about who visits them, visits should be enabled unless there are compelling reasons. Those reasons should be agreed through a Mental Capacity Act decision-making process;
• If a resident’s care is publicly funded, stopping a resident from receiving visits may be a breach of their right to respect for family and private life. These rights aren’t absolute and need to be balanced against the rights of other people. They may be situations where care providers can restrict or refuse visitors;
• If a care provider thinks a visitor poses a risk to a resident’s safety, the provider should talk to the visitor, assess the risk and impact and in extreme cases refer the matter to the local authority’s safeguarding team. If the visitor is the resident's attorney, then the office of the public guardian can apply to the Court of Protection to remove the attorney’s LPA; and
• Care homes have a duty to protect people using their services. If they cannot be resolved, as an extreme measure, the provider may consider placing conditions that restrict the visitor. Conditions should be proportionate to the risks and kept under review.

What happened

Background

27. Mrs Y has dementia. Mrs X and another relative are her attorneys for health and welfare. The complaint involves two care homes which I have called the first care home and the second care home. Mrs Y moved into the first care home in 2022. She moved to the second care home in September 2023 at short notice following events summarised in this statement. The Council arranged and funded Mrs Y’s placements. Mrs Y paid a contribution towards the cost of her care under charging rules in the Care Act 2014.
28. The Care Provider and Mrs X signed a contract for Mrs Y’s placement in November 2022. The Council told me it had not seen a copy. Mr and Mrs X provided a copy during my investigation which I shared with the Council. The contract said:
• Visitors who were verbally or physically abusive, threatening or who posed a risk could be excluded from the care home until agreement was reached about future behaviour. There would be a meeting to discuss future conduct.
• The notice period is 28 days. The reasons for giving notice included a visitor breaching the Care Provider’s code of conduct. The resident had a right of appeal to a director within seven days of receiving notice.

August 2023

29. At the start of August 2023, Mr X emailed the Council’s generic social care email address asking for a change of placement for Mrs Y and raising specific concerns about her care in the first care home. He also said Mrs Y was being “held in an institution against her will.” He said Mrs X had found another care home closer to them and they wanted Mrs Y to move there.
30. A safeguarding officer called Mrs X in response to Mr X’s email. Mrs X raised her own concerns. The safeguarding officer said she would liaise with Mrs Y’s social worker.
31. Also at the start of August, the manager of the first care home rang the duty social worker and said they could not meet the family’s needs and wanted to give notice on the placement. There is no record of the Care Provider giving notice in August.

September 2023

32. There were two separate incidents in September involving Mr X and Mrs X when they were visiting Mrs Y at the first care home. The first care home and Mr and Mrs X dispute what happened, with allegations and counter allegations of inappropriate behaviour on both sides. The police attended and did not pursue criminal cases against anyone involved.
33. The Council received safeguarding concerns from the first care home about:
• Mr and Mrs X moving Mrs Y without using a hoist
• Mrs Y being intoxicated following a visit out of the care home
• Mrs X forcing Mrs Y’s dentures into her mouth
• Mr X being verbally and physically aggressive to staff.
34. Mr X emailed the Council the day after the incident involving him and gave his version of events. He said the first care home’s staff had removed Mrs Y’s wheelchair and he made allegations about senior staff behaving inappropriately on the day.
35. A council manager spoke to the first care home’s manager. The care home’s manager said they would serve immediate notice on Mrs Y and she needed to leave immediately or the next day or they would send her to hospital. The council manager replied it was not appropriate to send Mrs Y to hospital or give immediate notice.
36. The first care home gave the Council four days’ written notice to end Mrs Y’s placement. The letter said this was due to the behaviour of the family having a negative effect on other residents’ wellbeing. The Care Provider’s regional director also wrote to Mrs X at the same time saying Mrs Y’s social worker was looking for another placement for Mrs Y and meantime Mr and Mrs X were not allowed to visit the first care home.
37. A council manager emailed Mr X to say they would book a review meeting with him and Mrs X and a social worker would call about new placements.
38. The Council opened a safeguarding investigation. The safeguarding enquiry report set out the concerns raised about Mr and Mrs X allegedly:
• Using unsafe practices when transferring Mrs Y;
• Causing pain or discomfort when inserting her dentures;
• Providing her with alcohol; and
• Being aggressive to staff when visiting.
39. The safeguarding report said the family denied the allegations which they claimed were fabricated. The safeguarding report includes a record of a telephone discussion on 18 September between Mrs X and a council officer where Mrs X was given the opportunity to give her version of events. The council officer put each concern to Mrs X and noted Mrs X’s replies. The officer said the Council intended to apply to the Court of Protection and the Council needed to look into other care homes. Mr X told me a social worker invited him to a meeting at short notice, which he could not attend, but then did not offer an alternative date, which he had expected.
40. The Council identified a second care home which had a vacancy and could take Mrs Y. The Council told me it conducted a mental capacity assessment and made a best interest decision to move Mrs Y. It has provided me with capacity assessment and best interest decision dated 15 September, but this includes a statement that Mrs Y agreed to the move to the second care home on 18 September but changed her mind. The Council told me Mrs X then changed her mind, leaving two voicemail messages saying she had withdrawn her consent. By this time Mrs Y was already on her way to the second care home. The safeguarding record said council officers agreed it was in Mrs Y’s best interests to move to the second care home.
41. The safeguarding report includes information from the police who attended the first care home and a statement from an independent witness present during the incident involving Mr X. The safeguarding report also includes information from Mrs Y about her wishes. She wanted Mr and Mrs X to visit her. She had support from an independent advocate. The report concluded:
• Any risk to Mrs Y had been reduced as she had moved and there was a plan in place regarding supervised contact; and
• Mr X had not visited the second care home although he was allowed to.
42. Mrs X asked for a list of the safeguarding concerns about her and this was emailed to her in October. Mrs X told the Council she did not consent to the move to the second care home and wanted Mrs Y to move to a different care home.

October 2023

43. The Council drew up a contract of expectations for the second care home placement and asked Mr and Mrs X to sign it. They refused. An officer later noted Mrs X had said she refused to sign it because there was no end date.
44. Mr X complained to the Council about the matters he has raised in his complaint to us. The Council’s brief response said it could only provide limited information as he was not Mrs Y’s attorney. The response said the Council had “updated Mrs X who holds LPA and was aware of the planned move” and that Mrs X needed to sign and return the contract of expectations.
45. The Council told us it had not yet applied to the Court of Protection and was monitoring the situation. It said Mr and Mrs X were at present (March 2024) restricted to visits in communal areas and other family members could go into Mrs Y’s bedroom.
46. We asked the Council to provide us with DOLS standard authorisations for Mrs Y. The Council sent us an internal record indicating it received requests for standard authorisations from the first care home in November 2022 which it “triaged low risk and was awaiting assessment”. And there was a second request on 15 September 2023 which was “cancelled due to move”. The internal record said there were three earlier requests before November 2022 for standard authorisations in respect of other care placements or hospital stays which were also not assessed.
47. There was a further meeting between the parties about contact and visiting and the outcome was the second care home would facilitate video calls and face-to-face contact would be arranged ‘as soon as possible’ dependent on Mrs Y getting a new wheelchair.
48. The Council started the process of authorising Mrs Y’s deprivation of liberty in the second care home. On 13 October, a Best Interests Assessor completed the relevant paperwork noting:
• At first Mrs X consented to the placement at the second care home, but then withdrew her consent;
• Currently, the family were not allowed to visit;
• The family had made some amendments to the contract of expectations. They were not happy about the lack of end dates or resolution.
49. The assessor approved a standard authorisation for four months.

November 2023

50. The Council’s records indicate senior staff at the second care home said at the start of November that family members could all visit in the communal area and to let staff know on the day.
51. There was a meeting with council officers, managers, Mrs X and other family members (but not Mr X) to resolve issues about contact. The second care home said it was keen to promote contact. Mr and Mrs X needed to sign the contract of expectations and if they would not, virtual contact was permitted with one day’s notice to allow staffing arrangements. The minutes noted the family’s concerns including about the contract of expectations.
52. The Council issued a standard authorisation for the second care home from 3 November. It expired on 12 February 2024. The paperwork noted the three-month period of authorisation should allow enough time for the Council to apply to the Court of Protection. The authorisation said the parties all needed to work together for Mrs Y’s benefit because she had limited freedom to see her family.
53. A social worker visited Mr and Mrs X at the end of November to give feedback on the safeguarding concerns they had raised about the first care home’s care of Mrs Y. The social worker reported that staff at the first care home had been told by a manual handling assessor that Mrs Y’s wheelchair should not be used.

December 2023

54. There was a second meeting on 4 December between council officers, Mrs X, her relatives and staff at the second care home. A family member said the LPA should have been given the chance to challenge/appeal the notice period. A council manager noted the family wanted to revisit the termination of the placement, but the situation could not be changed now and a care provider could terminate with less than 28 days’ notice to keep staff and other residents safe. There had been a window visit to Mrs Y and in-person visit. Another relative had also visited. Another family member noted the placement was not Mrs X’s choice.
55. There was a third meeting on 14 December between council officers/managers, Mrs X and her relatives. I have summarised the minutes:
• A council manager said the Council couldn’t insist a care provider kept a client and could only negotiate;
• Family were not happy with the second care home and wanted to be involved in deciding on another placement. Family said they were in a position where they did not get an opportunity to appeal the notice and Mrs Y was now in a place they were not happy with;
• Family asked when a review would take place. Officers said there would be a report around safeguarding issues and then a discussion with the LPAs. Mrs Y had an independent advocate who had visited her; and
• The Court of Protection process was on hold as things had settled down and court was not the best way to reach a solution.

January 2024

56. There was a meeting with council managers and Mr and Mrs X. This was a case conference about the safeguarding concerns made against them. The purpose was to communicate the outcomes of the safeguarding investigation. Officers went through each allegation and gave Mr and Mrs X feedback. Mr X said the family had not been consulted or involved in the process before the present meeting. The minutes summarised the discussion and noted Mr X’s disagreement. Two of the concerns were substantiated. This means officers concluded that it was likely harm occurred. They were:
• Inappropriate moving and handling and
• Behaviour jeopardising the placement at the first care home.

A council manager noted the Council was not saying an assault took place, but the Council looked at the behaviours around verbal aggression. The meeting ended prematurely when Mr X disputed the outcome. Mrs X said she would like a timescale so she could move Mrs Y. The intention was for the social worker to arrange a review of Mrs Y’s placement.

57. The Council told me at the start of my investigation that it had not applied to the Court of Protection and was monitoring the situation. It said Mr and Mrs X could visit Mrs Y in communal areas and other family members could visit Mrs Y in her bedroom. Mr X told me that he did not think he was allowed to visit Mrs Y in the second care home and so he had not done so.
58. Recently, there has been an application to the Court of Protection and a hearing to discuss ongoing disputes between the parties about what is in Mrs Y’s best interests.

Was there fault?

The Council placed restrictions on their contact with Mrs Y

59. There is no fault in issuing a written agreement which sets out expectations around visitors’ behaviour where there has been a history of disputes and concerns. Guidance from the CQC does not give relatives and residents absolute rights and there is discretion to limit contact where there are concerns raised around behaviour. This is justifiable on the grounds of staff and resident welfare and safety. Mr and Mrs X say they have done nothing wrong, but the Council was entitled to make a decision that their behaviour had jeopardised the placement at the first care home. I have taken into account the safeguarding records include written evidence from an independent witness present during one of the incidents. As there was no fault in the way the Council reached this decision we cannot question it.
60. Guidance indicates visiting restrictions should be reviewed. I am satisfied the Council and second care home acted in line with guidance by meeting with the LPAs several times to discuss the guidelines. Access to Mrs Y was reasonably increased from teams calls to window visits to in person visits in communal areas.
61. There was some confusion about whether or not Mr X was allowed to visit. This lack of clarity is fault causing avoidable distress for Mr X and Mrs Y and a missed opportunity for visits. The Council has clarified during this investigation that he can. This is a partial remedy.
62. There was a failure to act in line with the DOLS and to deliver Mrs Y’s care in line with Regulation 13(5) of the 2014 Regulated Activities Regulations. This was fault causing avoidable uncertainty about whether her care could have been delivered in a less restrictive way and a loss of opportunity for an independent assessor to make recommendations about her care. The fault was:
• The Council did not carry out the DOLS assessments in the first care home in response to the first care home’s request in 2022.
• There were no DOLS assessments carried out for earlier placements although the records indicate the Council had received requests and triaged them as low risk and placed Mrs Y on a DOLS assessment waiting list. Unauthorised gaps where a person is being deprived of their liberty are not permitted.
• The Council did not issue a standard authorisation for the second care home until two weeks after Mrs Y moved in.
63. There was fault by the Council in the process of identifying an alternative placement for Mrs Y. The Council should have involved Mrs X formally in an urgent best interests’ meeting. The Council has provided a written record of a best interests decision, but Mrs X was not directly involved in a meeting which involved professionals only. Informing Mrs X of the outcome of a professionals’ meeting after the event did not respect her status as Mrs Y’s health and welfare LPA and was not in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. This caused Mrs X avoidable distress and a loss of opportunity to discuss matters fully, albeit the options were limited due to the short timescale. There is not enough evidence to indicate the outcome would have been different even if Mrs X had been fully involved. I have taken into account the time pressure to secure an alternative placement given the relationship between Mrs X and the first care home had broken down.

The Council cancelled a meeting to discuss the matter, delayed investigating their concerns about Mrs Y’s care and refused to share evidence.

64. The Council received reports of concerns about Mrs Y’s care from Mr X in August 2023 and also a report from the first care home saying they may need to serve notice. This information should have triggered the Council to consider a review of Mrs Y’s care and support plan. There was a failure to act in line with Paragraphs 13.19 and 13.20 of the Care and Support Statutory Guidance. This was a missed opportunity for the parties to come together to discuss their concerns and to see if any of the care arrangements could be revised to address the matters being raised and if not, for an alternative placement to be identified in a planned way. The failure to consider a review caused avoidable frustration and distress.
65. The records indicate there was a discussion by phone with Mrs X in September which took place as part of the safeguarding enquiry into allegations about her and Mr X’s conduct. And in October, the social worker emailed Mrs X details of the concerns the first care home had raised about her and Mr X. I am satisfied Mr and Mrs X had the allegations put to them. Mr X had already given his account of what happened in an email to the Council the day after the incident involving him. So I do not uphold this complaint.
66. Mr and Mrs X attended a meeting in January 2024 where the outcome of the safeguarding enquiry into allegations about their conduct was discussed. I am satisfied with the Council’s communication and sharing of evidence/information and there is no fault. The actions taken were in line with Section 42 of the Care Act 2014 and statutory guidance.
67. When Mr X raised his complaint with the Council its response was brief and lacked detail. The Council’s complaint response was inadequate. The Council should have sought Mrs X’s consent for Mr X to complain on her behalf. Then the Council would have been able to give a fuller complaint response. This caused Mr and Mrs X avoidable frustration.

The contract

68. The Care Provider should not have issued a private contract to Mrs X because the Council commissioned Mrs Y’s placement and not Mrs X. Mrs X was not a party to the arrangement; the parties to the contract were the Council and the Care Provider. This caused avoidable confusion for Mr and Mrs X who sought to rely on a clause in the contract which gave a right of appeal against notice to the Care Provider’s directors. Having signed a contract for her mother’s care, Mrs X expected the provisions in that contract would apply. This confusion would likely have been avoided had the private contract not been issued.

Back to top

Agreed action

69. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although I found fault with the actions of the Care Provider, I have made recommendations to the Council. The Council has accepted my recommendations.
70. Within one month of my final decision, the Council will issue:
1. A written apology for the avoidable distress, confusion and frustration caused by the fault I have identified in the previous section of this statement. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
2. A payment of £250 to Mr and Mrs X. This is a symbolic payment for the distress and confusion caused.
3. A payment of £500 to Mrs Y. Again, this is a symbolic payment to reflect avoidable distress and uncertainty concerning the gaps in DOLS standard authorizations.
4. The Council directs the Care Provider not to issue private contracts to residents or relatives whose care it commissions.
71. Within three months, the Council will review its triaging procedures for DOLS requests to ensure they comply with the requirements of Schedule A1 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We have made recommendations for this Council in a previous case regarding DOLS delays (ref: 20 014 148) and so it is disappointing to find another case where there is fault for the same reason.
72. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the actions in paragraphs 70 and 71.
73. Mr and Mrs X seek an alternative care location for Mrs Y and unrestricted visits. There has been a recent hearing at the Court of Protection which is best placed to decide on these issues.

Back to top

Final decision

74. There was fault by the Council and a care home it commissioned: Mrs Y was deprived of her liberty without an authorisation, there was a failure to involve her attorney in a best interest meeting to decide on a new placement, a complaint response lacked detail and a private contract should not have been issued. This caused avoidable confusion, frustration and distress. The Council will apologise, make symbolic payments and review procedures for assessing cases referred for deprivation of liberty assessments to ensure these take place within the required legal timeframes.
75. I completed the investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman