Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr C signing a document agreeing to pay for care which his son, Mr B says he did not understand. This is because it is unlikely we would find enough evidence of fault with the actions of the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained his father, Mr C, did not understand what he was signing when he agreed to pay for his care. Mr B says Mr C was suffering with mental health issues and the Council should have checked with him as his Power of Attorney that he wanted to continue with care and pay for it once his reablement package of care ceased.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr C received a reablement package of care on 24 April following discharge from hospital. The assessment says Mr C ‘appeared to be able to understand and retain the information being provided’. On 9 May 2023 Mr C signed to say the Reablement Practitioner had explained the charging process to him and ongoing support from that date will be chargeable. The Council advised Mr C and Mr B on 11 July that Mr C’s contribution towards his care had been assessed as £126.95 a week. Mr B complained that Mr C did not know what he was signing and would not have agreed to pay for his care package.
6. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 says a person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that he lacks capacity. A person should not be treated as unable to make a decision:

• Because he makes an unwise decision.
• Based simply on: their age; their appearance; assumptions about their condition, or any aspect of their behaviour.
• Before all practicable steps to help the person to do so have been taken without success.

7. The Council has confirmed Mr C did not request that he wanted Mr B to be present when he signed the document. In the absence of a capacity assessment confirming Mr C lacked capacity, there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant us investigating. The Ombudsman could not say Mr C lacks or lacked capacity to make decisions or sign documents.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman