The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council made a best interest decision in respect of Mr Y. The Council intends to hold a further best interest meeting, therefore there is nothing worthwhile to be achieved through further investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complained on behalf of his father, Mr Y, who lacks capacity. He said the Council’s decision to allow Mr Y to return home after a period in hospital was unsafe and ignored the views of a consultant and Mr Y’s family. He wants the Council to review its decision.
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
Mr Y was admitted to hospital at the end of April 2021. Whilst in hospital Mr Y was assessed as not having mental capacity. The Council completed a best interest meeting to plan for Mr Y’s discharge from hospital. That meeting was attended by Mr X, two Occupational Therapists, a mental health doctor and the hospital Discharge Team. The professionals at the meeting agreed Mr Y should return home for further assessment in his home environment.
Mr X disagreed with the best interest decision and asked for a further meeting. The Council arranged that for a couple of days later. A different mental health doctor attended. They did not support Mr X’s return home.
The Council’s complaint response states the Officer chairing the second meeting had to stop the meeting because of Mr X’s behaviour. The Council confirmed it would refer Mr Y to an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) to support the best interest decision making. It said Mr Y would stay in hospital until the IMCA had completed their assessment and a further best interest meeting held.
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint further. Since making its initial decision that Mr Y should return home, the Council has decided to appoint an IMCAA and hold a further best interest meeting. The outcome of that will supersede the previous meeting. Therefore, there is nothing worthwhile to be achieved by further investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is nothing worthwhile to be achieved by further investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman