Summary: The Council is at fault for the way in which it banned Mr & Mrs X from visiting their daughter, Ms Y in her supported living accommodation for almost a year. It failed to investigate allegations against Mrs X fairly and failed to consider the impact of the ban on Ms Y. It also failed to conduct a mental capacity assessment of Ms Y in line with legislation.

The complaint

1. Mr & Mrs X complain they have been unfairly prevented from visiting their adult daughter, Ms Y, in her supported living accommodation because of allegations made by another resident.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
4. 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

5. I have:
• considered the complaint and discussed it with Mrs 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 Mrs 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 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.
9. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) is an amendment to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and came into force on 1 April 2009. The safeguards provide legal protection for individuals who lack mental capacity to consent to care or treatment and live in a care home, hospital or supported living accommodation.
10. The DoLS protect people from being deprived of their liberty, unless it is in their best interests and there is no less restrictive alternative. The legislation sets out the procedure to follow to obtain authorisation to deprive an individual of their liberty. Without the authorisation, the deprivation of liberty is unlawful.

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

11. 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.
12. Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014:

• Regulation 12 – “Safe care and treatment”. Providers must assess the risks to people's health and safety during any care or treatment. Guidance says providers must do what is reasonably practicable to mitigate risks;
• Regulation 13 – “Safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment”. This regulation says a person should not be deprived of their liberty without lawful authority;

Human rights

13. The Care Act 2014 says CQC regulated Care Providers are acting as public authorities for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) if a local authority funds/arranges a person’s care. This means that if a local authority funds/arranges a person’s care then the Care Provider is a public authority and so the person gets the protection of the HRA.
14. 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)
15. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights says everyone has a right to respect for their private and family life, home, and correspondence. This right is qualified which means it may need to be balanced against other people’s rights or those of the wider public. A qualified right can be interfered with only if the interference is designed to pursue a legitimate aim, is a proportionate interference and is necessary. Legitimate aims include:

• the protection of other people’s rights;
• national security;
• public safety;
• the prevention of crime;
• the protection of health.

16. It is not our role to decide whether a person’s human rights have been breached. That is for the courts. 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.

The Court of Protection

17. The Court of Protection deals with decision-making for adults who may lack

capacity to make specific decisions for themselves.

18. The Court of Protection may need to become involved in difficult cases or cases where there is disagreement which cannot be resolved in any other way. The Court of Protection:

• decides whether a person has capacity to make a particular decision for themselves;
• makes declarations, decisions or orders on financial or welfare matters affecting people who lack capacity to make such decisions;
• appoints deputies to make decisions for people lacking capacity to make those decisions;
• decides whether a Lasting Power of Attorney or Enduring Power of Attorney is valid; and removes deputies or attorneys who fail to carry out their duties.

Key facts

Ms Y

19. Ms Y is in her thirties. She has a learning disability and a visual impairment. She lives in supported living housing along with three other residents. She has her own bedroom and shares communal space with the other residents. The placement is arranged and funded by the Council.
20. As part of this investigation the Council provided this office with a copy of Ms Y’s needs assessment and support plan, completed in July 2023. The document is detailed, comprehensive and sets out the support Ms Y requires. The social worker recorded, “… [Ms Y’s] capacity has been formally assessed in relation to her care and support needs and in my professional opinion, there are no concerns in relation to her capacity re: her care and support needs as dictated within the Care Act 2014”.
21. The social worker noted Ms Y to be “routine based and thrives when she knows what is happening that day…” and benefited from having a very structured routine… Ms Y was reported to enjoy a close relationship with both her parents. At the time of the assessment Ms Y received regular visits from Mr & Mrs X and went out with them at weekends. Ms Y was deemed not to need support from care staff to maintain her relationship with her parents.
22. The assessor sought and recorded Ms Y’s views, that her parents and other family members were important to her, as were members of support staff in her accommodation.
23. A referral to advocacy services was made in February & June 2024.

Mr & Mrs X

24. Mrs X says she had expressed concerns about the support provided to Ms Y for some time before the visit ban. She says, on occasions Ms Y contacted her in a distressed state alleging support staff were not helping her to complete some personal care tasks and/or provide food. She said Ms Y was not receiving all her 1-1 support hours, and she also raised concerns about how some aspects of the property were managed. For example, blocked fire exits and issues relating to the security of door keys. Mrs X says these issues have not been properly addressed.
25. In June 2023 Mrs X says she received an invite to a relatives meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to inform everyone about the implementation of a new visitor’s policy to the supported accommodation. Mrs X says she could not understand the implementation of the policy and that she was not happy with the decision.
26. Mrs X acknowledges there were occasions she did not adhere to the new visiting policy. She cites one occasion when she went to meet Ms Y at her dance class and gave her and a member of support staff from Ms Y accommodation a lift back in her car. She then escorted Ms Y from her car to the front door. She says she did not go inside.
27. She also recounts another occasion she called at Ms Y’s accommodation in advance of a visit, but this was not recorded in the home’s communication book, so support staff were not expecting her arrival and refused her entry.
28. Mrs X says she was unaware of any issues until September 2023, when she was invited to a meeting with the Council. At the meeting Mrs X was told of an allegation made by a resident five months previously, in April 2023, that she (Mrs X) had called the resident ‘a lazy lump’ and that her general demeanour towards staff and residents had made the resident uncomfortable. Mrs X was told that a member of support staff had witnessed the name calling incident and had made a statement confirming this. Mr & Mrs X were told they were both banned from entering Ms Y’s accommodation for two weeks to allow further investigation/consideration of the matter.
29. Mrs X says she was told she could recommence visits after two weeks on the basis that she and Mr X adhere to the visiting policy. On Mrs X’s first visit, the Council failed to inform support staff of the new agreement and Mrs X was refused entry. The Council later acknowledged this and apologised to Mrs X. When Mrs X
30. Mrs X says, on her first visit to Ms Y after the ban, she arrived at Ms Y’s home and was taking some items from the boot of her car, when the resident involved in the allegation went and stood by the car, smiled, and appeared to be waiting for her. The resident tried to speak to Mrs X, which Mrs X ignored because she says she was fearful of doing the wrong thing, and/or further allegations.
31. On 17 October 2023, Mr X telephoned Ms Y’s accommodation to request support staff ask the resident not to speak to him or Mrs X to avoid any further difficulty.
32. Following this, Mrs X received a telephone call from the Council on 19 October 2023. Mrs X were told a resident had been upset by Mrs X ignoring her, and the support provider was concerned about the request that the resident refrain from speaking to them. A visit ban was reapplied for six weeks. A further meeting was held on 26 October 2023, to discuss the allegations and the ban. Mr & Mrs X disputed the visiting ban and said they intended no malice toward the resident.
33. Mr & Mrs X were able to take Ms Y out and take her to their own home and have her stay over at weekends, but they believed Ms Y had a right to have her parents visit her home.
34. Mr & Mrs X had a further meeting with the Council on 21 November 2023 during which she says she was told the visiting ban had been extended to a ‘lifetime’ ban. Mrs X says the visiting ban was not reviewed and she understood it to be open ended.
35. Mrs X says there were times during the visit ban that Ms Y contacted her in distress alleging staff were not supporting her in the way she needed. Mrs X says she had contacted the support provider and the Council numerous times about this, but it was very difficult to support Ms Y remotely.
36. Matters escalated in June 2024 when Ms Y alleged a member of support staff had upset her. She went to stay with Mr & Mrs X saying she did not wish to return to her accommodation. Mrs X believed a change of support provider was needed.
37. The Council completed an assessment of Ms Y’s capacity to make decisions about her accommodation needs on 1 July 2024, following which a best interest decision was taken, that she return to her accommodation. Mr & Mrs X and Ms Y’s advocate were involved in this process.
38. During this investigation Mr & Mrs X were invited to a further meeting with social services on 2 August 2024. The team manager previously overseeing matters had been replaced by a different manager. Mrs X says Ms Y’s advocate expressed concerns to her about the visit ban. Mr & Mrs X were informed that visits to Ms Y’s home could recommence with conditions in place. They were told they would need to telephone in advance of any visits and would need to have the consent of other residents to use the communal areas.
39. Mrs X says the previous manager at Ms Y’s accommodation has left and there are some agency staff covering vacant posts. Mrs X continues to be concerned about some elements of support provided to Ms Y. She reported this to the Council. I have had sight of the correspondence exchanged between Mrs X and the Council which shows the Council told Mrs X her concerns would be investigated and that a safeguarding concern would be raised and screened by the relevant team, following which the Council would provide her with feedback. These are not matters I have included in this investigation.
40. Mrs X says she has recently been removed by the DWP as Ms Y’s appointee. She says the same happened in respect of Ms Y’s motability agreement. These are not matters I have included in this investigation.
41. During this investigation, Mrs X received a written complaint response from the Council, to concerns she raised in May 2024 relating to a best interest meeting, Ms Y’s finances and the visit ban, which at the time of the complaint was still in force. I have had sight of the letter, dated 11 September 2024. The author of the letter acknowledged the delay in the response and apologised.

Information from the Council

42. The Council confirms Mrs X raised concerns about housing management issues. It says officers from its social work team carried out three separate unannounced visits to the property and the fire exit and found it not to be blocked on these occasions. It says it has not received concerns about the security of door keys. It says the complaint about the utilisation of Ms Y’s 1-1 support hours was upheld.    
43. The Council provided a copy of the concerns raised by support staff at Ms Y’s accommodation in April 2023. The report relays the allegation from a resident that Mrs X had called her (resident) a ‘lazy lump’. I have no evidence to show this was witnessed by support staff. The report provided relays the residents version of events.
44. The Council says it did not inform Mrs X of the allegation because it wanted to protect the resident involved.
45. The Council says it received reports from support staff of ‘Mrs X being historically rude to staff’. The Council provided records from the support provider. These show a large volume of contacts from Mrs X with concerns/enquiries about Ms Y. On occasions Mrs X telephoned support staff late at night, and one occasion at 4am. I have seen no evidence which shows this was addressed with Mrs X by the support provider or the Council at the time. As part of this investigation the Council provided this office with notes of incidents, which it says it evidence of historical coercive control of Ms Y by Mrs X.
46. Support staff contacted the Council in June 2023 to report concerns expressed by a resident about Mrs X’s attitude, and that Mrs X’s unannounced visits were causing the resident anxiety. A decision was taken to implement a visitors’ policy for all visitors to the house. I have had sight of the undated visitors’ policy. It sets out expected behaviours of visitors towards staff and residents, that visits must be pre-arranged, and ID provided if required.
47. The policy was communicated to relatives at a meeting on 19 June 2023. Mrs X attended the meeting and was provided with a copy of the policy. The records show Mrs X’s expressed disagreement with the policy and said she wanted to seek legal advice.
48. The records show support staff informed the Council in August 2023, that Mrs X was not adhering to the visitor’s policy and concerns about Mrs X’s attitude continued.
49. The Council completed a mental capacity assessment of Ms Y’ s capacity to understand the reasons for the visiting ban imposed on Mr & Mrs X on 8 September 2023. I have had sight of a copy of the document which includes a transcript of the social worker’s discussion with Ms Y. The social worker’s questions appear loaded and persuasive. For example:

• “Do you know why those rules were put in place? [Ms Y]I can't remember.
• They were put in place because when visitors come, it was interrupting the house. [Ms Y] I don't know.
• Also, it is asked that visitors call to check it is a good time for the service and staff, mum and dad - have not been doing this? [Ms Y] Haven't they?
• The staff are busy. Because mum and dad are not following the rules, it is causing upset [Ms Y]”

50. The social worker concluded it was in her “…professional opinion, it is in [Ms Y’s] Best Interest's for her parents not to be allowed to visit [supported accommodation] for a 2-week period”.
51. The Council met with Mr & Mrs X on 14 September 2023, to discuss the unannounced visit, and to inform her about the allegation made by a resident in April 2023. The Council told Mrs X, and this office that the incident had been witnessed by a member of support staff. A two-week visiting ban was imposed on Mr & Mrs X. The ban was lifted after two weeks, and Mr & Mrs X were permitted to visit on the condition they adhered to the visiting policy.
52. Support staff discussed the lifting of the two-week ban with the resident involved. Notes of this conversation have been provided to this office. Staff told the resident that ‘management’ would be submitting a complaint to Ms Y’s social worker about the lifting of the ban.
53. Support staff contacted the Council on 17 October 2023 to raise a safeguarding referral citing Mrs X’s unannounced visit to the home which had caused the resident stress and distress. Staff also reported Mr & Mrs X had requested support staff ask the resident not to speak to them on their visits. Support staff believed the resident was being ‘targeted’ by Mr & Mrs X and that she needed to be protected from them. Social services recorded it would “…be speaking with the CQC… to see what grounds we have to protect [the resident]”.
54. The records show discussions support staff had with the resident about Mr & Mrs X, and that staff discussed a safeguarding referral in respect of Mr & Mrs X and sought the resident’s consent to this.
55. The Council commenced safeguarding enquiries on 19 October 2023 citing “…ADASS Practice Guidance criteria is met for Tier 3 Psychological "Humiliation" & Tier 2 Psychological "Treatment that undermines dignity and damages esteem" Tier 3 Discrimination "Humiliation on a regular basis". The investigating officer spoke with support staff and the resident concerned. The Council deemed the outcome to be ‘substantiated’. A further visiting ban was imposed for six weeks “…with a view to reviewing this”. I have seen no evidence of a timescale or date for review.
56. The Council met with Mr & Mrs X on 21 November 2023, four weeks into the restriction. I have had sight of the minutes of the meeting which is recorded as having been “…called in line with the Mental Capacity Legal Framework following the local authority receiving a referral”. The purpose of the meeting being to explore how to proceed with the visiting ban and “…clarify what to do going forward, in the best interest of [Ms Y] and other tenants”. The basis of the ongoing ban was explained. Mrs X strongly refuted all allegations, including the alleged insult of a resident. She asked to see the witness statement from the staff member who reported witnessing the incident. The Council told Mrs X they would get back to her about this. Mr & Mrs X were told the safeguarding enquiry explored general concerns, that it had not focussed on any individual and the outcome was not detrimental to Ms Y. The records I have seen show the safeguarding enquiry focused on Mrs X only. No allegations against were levied against Mr X.
57. A social worker told Mr & Mrs X that Ms Y was ‘ok’ with them not visiting and was not asking for them to return. Mr & Mrs X expressed concern about Ms Y’s capacity and asked if a capacity assessment had been completed. The Council said such an assessment had been completed previously, that Ms Y made everyday decisions and there was no concern in relation to this. Ms Y’s social worker said it was her belief that Ms Y had capacity regarding her care and support, and as such a mental capacity assessment was not needed. Mr X believed Ms Y’s capacity depended on the choices offered.
58. Mr & Mrs X raised concern about the quality of support provided to Ms Y, and cited instances in which she had contacted them in a distressed state. The manager said a quality rating assessment of the service was due to be completed.
59. The Council says, “…based on all information available at the time of that meeting…” it was agreed the ban should be extended further. The Council says there was a delay in sharing the witness statement with Mrs X due to redaction needed for anonymity of the staff member.
60. In response to enquiries from this office about arrangements to review the ongoing ban the Council said it had planned to review the ban in February & March 2024, but this had to be postponed because of two subsequent safeguarding investigations.
61. The records show that during the visit ban Mrs X continued to raise concerns about the quality of support provided to Ms Y and that Ms Y was on occasions distressed. This resulted in Ms Y leaving her accommodation temporarily and going to stay with Mr & Mrs X. A social worker assessed Ms Y’s capacity to make decisions about her accommodation needs on 1 July 2024. Mr & Mrs X were present. This concluded Ms Y lacked capacity to make such decisions and a best interest meeting was held on 3 July 2024. Ms Y was supported by an advocate at the meeting which concluded she (Ms Y) should return to her accommodation. All parties agreed. I note the outcome of the capacity assessment differs from the assessment completed by the same social worker a year earlier (July 2023). The change in Ms Y’s capacity is not discussed or explained in the assessment of July 2024.

Analysis

62. It is not my role to determine whether the allegations made against Mrs X have any substance. Neither is it my role to decide where Ms Y should live. My role is to determine, if following allegations against Mrs X, the Council acted properly.
63. I find numerous failings by the Council in this complaint.
64. The Council failed to act accordingly when allegations were made about Mrs X’s conduct towards another resident in April 2023. This incident should have been dealt with at the time, and in the spirit of natural justice, Mrs X should have been made aware of the allegations and afforded the opportunity to respond.
65. A safeguarding investigation should include coordinating and collecting information about the safeguarding concern, including the context of the events. Opportunities should always be given to allow the views of the alleged perpetrator to be included in the investigatory process unless it there was significant risk to the safety of the alleged victim. There was no such threat in this case.
66. The Council should have interviewed Mrs X and afforded her the opportunity to respond before coming to a decision on the substance of the allegation. The Council wrongly told Mrs X that a staff member had witnessed Mrs X making the alleged comment of ‘lazy lump’ to the resident. I have seen no such witness statement. The information I have seen is that of a statement taken by a member of support staff relaying what the resident told her had happened, not what she (support staff) had witnessed herself. The safeguarding investigation was neither fair nor balanced.
67. In respect of allegations of Mrs X not adhering to the visitation policy. The Council judged the allegations to be substantiated before seeking Mrs X’s version of events. The Council failed to consider the context of some of the allegations. For example, on one occasion, Mrs X had given Ms Y and a staff member a lift back from a dance class. The staff member accepted the lift, knowing the visitor’s policy in force, and the reasons for this. The staff member should not have accepted the lift and should have reminded Mrs X about the visiting policy.
68. In any event the Council and/or support provider should have addressed incidences of visiting breaches and issued Mrs X with a formal warning before taking further action. It should have dealt with concerns about her behaviour in the same way and set out clear expectations and explained the consequences should this not be met.
69. There was no good reason to include Mr X in the visiting ban. There were no concerns raised about his behaviour towards residents or support staff. The inclusion of Mr X in the ban was unfair and unjust. Allowing his visits to continue would have provided Ms Y with some continuity and reassurance during the period the allegations against Mrs X were investigated.
70. Councils/support providers that restrict access to a service user should write to the individuals concerned with a copy of the relevant policy and explain why a decision to restrict visits had been taken, how long any limit will last, and set out how/when the decision will be reviewed. This did not happen in this case. Mr & Mrs X were told the visiting ban was ‘open ended’. This left Mr & Mrs X in limbo for almost a year, causing them significant stress and distress.
71. Some of the information given to Mr & Mrs X was disingenuous. The Council/support provider said the safeguarding enquiry had not focused on any individual, when in fact it had focused only on Mrs X, it also said the outcome was not detrimental to Ms Y, when not having her parent’s visit was detrimental. The Council’s primary focus was another resident, not Ms Y.
72. I have concerns about the way in which the Council presented some information to this office. It provided records, which it said was evidence of historical coercive control by Mrs X. This is a serious allegation and one which would merit formal enquiries. The evidence I have seen does not support the Council’s claim, had it done, the Council would have been at significant fault for allowing such matters to drift. Prior to this investigation, there were no recorded concerns about Mrs X’s involvement with Ms Y. All previous assessments of Ms Y note the value of the relationship between her and Mrs X. I also note the Council promoted contact away from the supported living facility before, during and after the visit ban.
73. It is fair to say there is evidence to suggest Mrs X attempted to micro-manage the support provided to Ms Y. The support provider had to deal with a large volume of contacts from Mrs X, often at inappropriate times. The Council and support provider should have addressed this with Mrs X sooner.
74. When the Council lifted the visit ban, it did so conditionally. However there appears to be no risk assessment or rationale about what and how any restrictions should be imposed.
75. The mental capacity assessment of Ms Y completed in September 2023 was not conducted in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The assessor asked leading questions, some of which were persuasive in nature. While the questions may be well intended, they did not fairly assess Ms Y’s decision-making ability. Leading questions can prompt a person to answer in a certain way with an implied outcome within the question itself. It is on this basis I find the assessment to be flawed. Consequently, any ‘best interests’ decision taken following this cannot be relied upon as accurate.
76. The Council gave Mr & Mrs X inconsistent information about whether a capacity assessment was needed to establish Ms Y’s capacity to make decisions about her accommodation and support needs, and later the ban.
77. An advocate was not sought in respect of visiting restrictions until February 2024. This should have been done at the point visiting restrictions were being considered.
78. Ms Y was denied the enjoyment of family visits to her home for almost a year. The Council believed the visit ban to be in her best interests, when in fact it could not possibly have been so. She was caught up in circumstances that must have been very difficult.
79. The Council appears not to have given due regard to Ms Y’s human rights in implementing an ongoing visit ban to Ms Y’s home.
80. Following enquiries from this office the Council now says, “…looked at the incident as a whole… it would be beneficial to lift any visiting ban in place and try to work collaboratively with the family to ensure the needs of [Ms Y] are identified and met”. The Council proposes a ‘behaviour contract’ to manage Mrs X’s contact and approach whilst visiting Ms Y’s accommodation.

Current situation

81. A new manager has been appointed to the social service team dealing with the events above. This officer says, “I have looked at this incident as a whole, I feel it would be beneficial to lift any visiting ban in place and try to work collaboratively with the family to ensure the needs of [Ms Y] are identified and met. I am in agreeance with the family returning to the service and in further agreeance with there being a ‘behaviour contract’ which will clearly outline the expected behaviours from all parties involved. I am confident that this approach will reduce the inflamed communication and provide the best decision for [Ms Y going forward. [Support Provider] will collaboratively support any decision going forward to try and resolve this situation”.
82. Mrs X says that following a meeting with the Council on 2 August 2024, both her and Mr X are able to visit Ms Y in her bedroom. She says that access to communal areas is subject to consent from all tenants in advance. If tenants change their minds Mr & Mrs X must remove themselves. Mrs X says the visits have been going well and her and the resident involved in the allegations have engaged in a positive and friendly way.
83. I have not addressed the issues relating to the ongoing management of Ms Y’s finances. The Court of Protection is the appropriate body to consider such disputes.
84. The Court of Protection is also the appropriate body to consider any ongoing dispute about Ms Y’s accommodation and support needs.

Back to top

Agreed action

85. The Council should, within four weeks of the final decision:

• apologise to Mr & Mrs X individually for faults set out above;
• pay Mr X £1000 for distress, anxiety and uncertainty caused by visiting restrictions;
• pay Mrs X £750 for distress, anxiety and uncertainty caused by the visiting restrictions;
• apologise to Ms Y using appropriate method of communication, for distress and anxiety caused by visiting restrictions and pay her £1000;
• arrange an independent reassessment of Ms Y’s capacity to decide her accommodation & support needs. This should be completed by a suitably qualified officer, not involved with the events complained about.

86. Within three months:

• review its training around mental capacity and ensure all workers who may need to complete mental capacity assessments, are clear about how these should be completed;
• review the support providers visiting policy to ensure effectiveness and fairness to all;
• provide this office with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

87. There is evidence of fault by the Council in this complaint.
88. The above recommendations are a suitable way to settle the complaint.
89. It is on this basis; the complaint will be closed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman