This section contains information about recent case law and reports from the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman in relation to complaints made against local authorities:
For summaries of key mental capacity and Court of Protection decisions, see: Mental Capacity Law Cases (39 Essex Chambers) and England and Wales Court of Protection Decisions (BAILII)
June 2026:
In this case, the Supreme Court determined that:
December 2024: Mental Capacity Assessments for Deaf People
Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council v KZ & Ors [2024] EWCOP 72 (T3)
This Court of Protection ruling concerns a 20 year old man who had previously been assessed as lacking mental capacity for a wide range of decisions. These mental capacity assessments had been completed by a number of different professionals including a consultant psychiatrist. However, following the appointment of a different consultant who had specialist skills and knowledge of working with deaf people and the use of robust practical steps, it was assessed that KZ did have the mental capacity to make all decisions and the judge agreed.
The judge stated:
“As regards wider issues concerning the assessment of mental capacity of deaf individuals,….. the use of a non-specialist expert is not an appropriate substitute for the specialist assessment and risks incorrect conclusions regarding capacity being reached. Where an assessment is required the following considerations should guide any assessment of a deaf individual fluent in BSL:
(1) Any mental capacity assessment of a deaf individual fluent in BSL should ideally be undertaken by an assessor who is suitably qualified to communicate at the relevant level of BSL. If that is not done, there should be a clear explanation why and what measures, if any, are proposed to be in place to manage that gap.
(2) The assessor should ideally have a background in understanding deafness and engaging with the deaf community. If they don’t, there should be a clear explanation why they are undertaking the assessment without such knowledge.”
March 2024: Safeguarding Adults and the Inherent Jurisdiction
Wakefield Metropolitan District Council v FH & Anor [2024] EWHC 830 (Fam)
This Court of Protection judgment shows how the inherent jurisdiction can be used on a long-term basis to safeguard adults at risk of abuse or neglect. The case considered the most appropriate way of protecting an elderly woman (FH) from her husband (MH) of over 60 years. FH had complex health needs (including Alzheimer’s disease) and lived in a care home. However, she was assessed as having mental capacity to make decisions, meaning that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 could not be used and instead the Inherent Jurisdiction was applied.
The judge stated: ‘I have no doubt at all about the love which FH has for MH, and MH for his wife, but MH’s aggressive conduct as observed by professionals and care staff, his ungoverned temper at times, his interference with the proper provision of care for FH in the care home, render the making of injunctive orders necessary in FM’s best interests.’
Using the Inherent Jurisdiction, the judge made an order which prevented them from living together and ensuring that any contact between was supervised.
August 2023: Ordinary Residence
R (Worcestershire County Council) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2023] UKSC 31
The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal findings that first and originating local authority Worcestershire County Council had a duty to provide aftercare services rather than the second or host local authority Swindon Borough Council for an adult who had been re-detained in Swindon. The Supreme Court determined that after the person’s second discharge, Swindon had a duty to provide aftercare services, not Worcestershire. The case turned on whether the person, ‘JG’, had been “ordinarily resident…immediately before being detained” for the purposes of s 117(3)(a) of the MHA.
Worcestershire successfully argued that Swindon owed a duty to provide aftercare services, at the time of the second discharge, because the person had been ordinarily resident in Swindon immediately before the second detention. It was concluded where there had been more than one period of detention, the words ‘immediately before being detained’ must refer to the most recent period of detention. The Supreme Court found that although the person lacked mental capacity to decide where to live, the decision to live in Swindon was still made voluntarily “because it was the result of a choice made by those with the power to make decisions on their behalf.” The person’s residence in Swindon was also adopted for settled purposes, therefore, they were ordinarily resident in Swindon before their second detention on its plain meaning.
July 2022: Care Act Interpretation
A council wrongly stopped funding family holidays for two disabled brothers by adopting a “restrictive and wrong” interpretation of the Care Act 2014. The Court of Appeal rejected an appeal brought by Suffolk County Council against a High Court ruling last year that quashed its 2020 decision ending funding for the holidays for the men.
November 2021: Mental Capacity and Sexual Consent
JB appealed the Court of Appeal decision that he lacked capacity to engage in sexual relations, but his appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and found that ‘Information relevant to that decision includes the fact that the other person must have the ability to consent to the sexual activity and must in fact consent before and throughout the sexual activity. Under section 3(1)(a) MCA, JB should be able to understand that information and under section 3(1)(c) MCA he should be able to use or to weigh it as part of the decision-making process. Applying the test in section 2(1) MCA on the available information, JB is unable to make a decision for himself in relation to that matter because of an autistic impairment of his mind’. The matter was remitted to a different Judge in the Court of Protection to determine the issue of capacity to engage in sexual relations as new information was available. For more details, see A Local Authority v JB.
May 2021: Disabled people’s access to sex worker services
Care workers who help disabled people access sexual services are not breaking the law, the Court of Protection has ruled. Mr Justice Hayden said that a care plan to facilitate a man’s contact with a sex worker would not be contrary to section 39 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
January 2021: AMHP Assessments during the Pandemic
The High Court has ruled, Devon Partnership NHS Trust and Secretary of State for Health and Social Care NHS Commissioning Board, that it is unlawful for approved mental health professionals to use video assessments for applications to detain people under the Mental Health Act 1983. This overturns NHS England legal guidance permitting video MHA assessments by AMHPs and doctors during the pandemic.
January 2021: COVID-19 Vaccine in Best Interests
The Vice-President of the Court of Protection ruled, E and London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, that it is in the best interests of an 80-year-old care home resident with dementia and schizophrenia to receive the Covid-19 vaccination, despite her son’s objections
June 2020: Breach of Human Rights
The Court of Appeal overturned a previous court decision which breached the human rights of a disabled man, with mental capacity who was forcibly removed from his home and taken to hospital. The judgement, Mazhar v Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Trust, includes lessons for social workers and legal advisors using inherent jurisdiction.
April 2020: Undertaking Assessments Remotely
P’s daughter applied to the court to achieve his discharge from a care home where he was residing and a declaration that it was in his best interest to return home with a package of care: BP v Surrey County Council & Anor [2020] EWCOP17
The application had arisen because of the decision of P’s care home to suspend all visits from family members because of the coronavirus pandemic. It was alleged those constrictions implemented by the care home constituted an unlawful interference with P’s Article 5 ( right to liberty) and Article 8 (right to family).
The Court ruled that P should remain at the care home and the outstanding capacity should be undertaken via Skype or Facetime.
March 2019: The Islamic Faith and the Mental Capacity Act
An article in the BJPsych Bulletin reviews a Court of Protection case (2017) which assessed and decided issues relating to the Islamic faith and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
July 2018: End of Life Care for Persons in a Vegetative State
The Supreme Court ruled (An NHS Trust and others v Y) that where a person is in a vegetative state, their family will no longer have to consult a judge when deciding to stop their end of life care if the medical team are also in agreement. Even if the person has not made an advance decision to refuse treatment, where the family and medical team agree it is in the person’s best interests, artificial feeding and hydration can be stopped.
September 2017: Court of Appeal finds for Council in first appeal on Care Act 2014 provisions
The Court of Appeal has dismissed a disabled man’s appeal over a decision by a county council to reduce his personal budget from £1,651 to £950 per week and revise his care and support plan. See the ruling: Court of Appeal finds for council in first appeal on Care Act 2014 Provisions and Lessons for Social Workers from Luke Davey’s Care Act Appeal (Community Care)
LGSCO reports are usually published some months after the decision date.
March 2025: London Borough of Croydon (24 007 428)
This report from the LGSCO stresses the importance of involving adults in reviews of their care arrangements. The local authority reviewed the complainant’s needs on several occasions without involving her in the process. The Ombudsman found that the local authority’s failure to involve her in the process did not comply with the requirements of the Care and Support Statutory Guidance. While the Guidance provides for a light touch approach and makes it clear that reviews need to be proportionate, it also says they need to be person-centred. That cannot be achieved without involving the adult themselves, and anyone else they want to support them. A review after a care arrangement has broken down provides an opportunity to ensure future arrangements are more sustainable.
July 2024: People Not Structures: Putting People at the Heart of Integrated Care
This report from the LGSCO and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman stresses the importance of focusing on the experience of people using services and prioritising joined up communication and activity that puts those people first in a ‘person first approach’.
February 2023: Good Record Keeping: Guide for Care Providers
This report shares the learning from LGSCO investigations highlighting examples of poor practice and summarises guidance on record-keeping by care providers.
This report shares the learning from LGSCO investigations to help councils, and other local services, meet their legal duties to ensure everyone has an equal opportunity to access their services, whatever their needs. The report identifies a number of positive steps councils can make to improve services, including reviewing staff training needs around the Equality Act 2010, incorporating Equality Act duties in contracts when commissioning services from external suppliers, and retaining alternative contact methods for people with alternative needs when moving services online.
November 2021 (decision date): Mr X complained about the quality of care his wife received at a Lancashire County Councilcommissioned care home. The LGSCO found the care home and the Council were at fault and that the safeguarding investigation failed to uncover harmful care, relying heavily on provider evidence.
October 2021 (decision date): A woman was left malnourished and without the support she needed for her medical conditions because Gloucestershire County Council ignored professional advice, a Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman investigation found.
September 2020 (decision date): An elderly couple of 59 years were split up with little regard for their welfare by Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has found.
November 2019 (decision date): The LGSCO found fault with Nottinghamshire County Council after a man with autism had to rely on his parents to part-fund his care when it cut his package without identifying a suitable alternative. This appeared to be for financial reasons. The LGSCO report criticised the Council for not reviewing the man’s care package for three years and for reducing it, due to the cost being above its standard rate.
November 2019 (decision date): The LGSCO heavily criticised Derbyshire County Council for not putting proper safeguarding measures in place for a woman in one of its care homes before she fell and died. The investigation found numerous missed opportunities to assess and try to prevent the woman’s pattern of falls. It criticised it for not doing enough to monitor her nutrition, hydration and low weight, which the inquest found was a factor in her death. It also found fault for not keeping accurate and up-to-date records of other allegations the woman and her family made about incidents in the home.
June 2019 (decision date): The LGSCO found that Bolton Council was at fault regarding lack of support Ms X received to recruit a personal assistant, and regarding an assessment by the Council which reduced her support by over 60%.
March 2019 (decision date): Mr F complained about the quality of home care provided by Reading Council’s care provider, Radis Group, to his late mother, Mrs B. In particular that the carers failed to call 999 when Mrs B was ill. The LGSCO made recommendations in relation to: training of carers in relation to emergency procedures and action when an adult is unwell; training of carers regarding record keeping; review of the Council’s complaints procedure; accuracy of safeguarding enquiry reports.
April 2018 (decision date): Council ignores medical evidence when deciding man’s housing application: Croydon council failed to take into account a man’s life-threatening health conditions – despite receiving letters from his specialists – when it decided the type of homes he could apply for, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has found.
February 2018 (decision date): Mr N, who has autism and other needs, and his mother had been in receipt of support which included one-to-one care, transport costs and a placement in a care centre. However, the London Borough of Bromley significantly cut the level of support at short notice, without reassessing the family’s needs, leaving the man’s mother to support her son during the holidays. The Ombudsman found fault causing injustice and recommendations are made in the report.
