The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs C’s complaint about the Council’s processes regarding her son’s, Mr D’s, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) assessments. This is because further investigation could not provide Mrs C with a different outcome to that she has received from the Council’s investigation into her complaints or make a different finding.
The complaint
Mrs C complained about the Council’s processes regarding her son’s, Mr D’s, Deprivation of Liberty (DoLS) assessments. Mrs C says they contained inaccuracies, false information, and wrong diagnosis. Mrs C says the Council should finalise amendments to previous reports, investigate why the reports are not completed, involve representatives and address systemic failures in DoLS procedures.
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 do not start an investigation if we decide 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 and Mrs C had a virtual meeting in June to discuss her concerns. Mrs C complained the DoLS assessment contained factual inaccuracies including a wrong diagnosis for Mr D, suggestion it had liaised with Mr E, Mr D’s father when it had not, and, she was unhappy with the language used about Mr D in the assessment. The Council said the diagnosis came from a previous Mental Health Assessment, but following further clarification agreed it should be removed from the assessment as there was no other record of the diagnosis. The Council explained the Doctor who recorded the diagnosis is no longer working with them, it does not have access to medical records and cannot say where the wrong information came from. The Council say it will ensure it consults with Mr E and Mrs C and include both of their views in reports. It agreed to amend the wording in the report to reflect Mrs C’s concerns about language and offered to undertake a further assessment, which Mrs C declined as she did not dispute the outcome and did not want to put Mr D through additional distress.
The Council has explained what happened, apologised for the inaccuracies, and advised it will amend the reports. While Mrs C has not had all the answers she wants to her queries and requests, it is not the role of the ombudsman to provide her with these. The Council has explained what it has done to minimise the risk of a similar occurrence in the future, and we could not add to this or make a different finding even if we investigated.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs C’s complaint because we could not make a different finding or add to the Council’s responses even if we investigated.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman