The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about care provided to the late Mr B or the Council’s safeguarding investigation into concerns Ms C raised. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council’s response.
The complaint
Ms C complained about the Council’s safeguarding of her late father’s, Mr B’s finances, when she told it family members were accessing his bank accounts. In addition Ms C complained: Mr B was placed in unsuitable care homes for seven months- and deprived of his right to choose private health care; The Council failed to communicate concerns she raised about Mr B’s wellbeing.
The Council failed to adhere to legal requirements of timescales regarding her complaints.
The Council passed information about Mr B onto others when he did not want information disclosed.
The Council failed to take action when she told it someone had gained access to Mr B’s bank account.
The Council failed to keep her informed about Mr B’s capacity resulting in her delaying applying for Power of Attorney or deputyship.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council has responded to Ms C’s complaints and further investigation could not provide different answers.
The Council says it did not complete a Care Needs Assessment for Mr B because he was either in hospital or a care home. It said as a result of Ms C’s complaint it is reviewing processes in respect of hospital discharges, including responsibility, timescales and next actions regarding the undertaking of assessments, support planning and reviews to ensure continuity of communication and understanding.
The Council explained Mr B was deemed to have capacity until he was admitted to hospital in January 2022. It said it advised Ms C in December 2021 Mr B had capacity and she would need to obtain Power of Attorney in order to manage his property and finances and confirmed deputyship would not be needed.
Following Mr B being readmitted to hospital in January 2022, Mr B’s health and mental capacity began to fluctuate. It says it received a referral for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) from the hospital as Mr B did not have capacity to decide where he should live and his remaining in the hospital was a deprivation of his liberty. The Council says the hospital should have provided family members about challenging a DoLS authorisation, however, it confirmed it did not assess Mr B and there was no DoLS authorisation in place before he passed away in May 2022.
The Council confirmed a safeguarding investigation commenced in October 2021 but was not concluded prior to his death. It said safety planning actions were taken to freeze Mr B’s known bank accounts.
We will not investigate this complaint. We could not now provide Mr B with a remedy to any fault which might be uncovered during an investigation. Ms C says the police has refused to investigate the theft because it is deemed to be a family matter, however, it is for the police to investigate allegations of theft, not the Ombudsman. Further investigation could not add to the Council’s response.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms C’s complaint because we could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman