IMCA Client A

Client A went into hospital following a fall. IMCA was instructed to act in relation to a Long Term Move of Accommodation decision and A’s discharge from hospital. A owned his own home however there was an ongoing court process where his home was due to be demolished as was in a very poor state of repair. A Best Interest decision was required.

Barriers faced in being heard:

Clear disagreement existed between the Health Board and the local authority in relation to A’s capacity around accommodation. IMCA asked ward staff if A had a DoLS authorisation in place, but was told one had not been applied for as the ward felt A had capacity.

The IMCA met with A, who stated his house had already been demolished. He saw he was being stopped from leaving the ward and felt like a “prisoner”.

Advocacy undertaken:

  • The IMCA attended a best interest meeting for A. Here it was explained that A’s house had not yet been demolished but it was felt by the social worker that A required support in a warden controlled flat. Residing in hospital was no longer necessary and an interim placement should be sought before A was moved into a new flat. The social worker explained that the step-down interim placements available were residential home settings.
  • With this information, the IMCA explained that a meeting with A was required to ascertain his wishes and views further.
  • At the same best interest meeting, the IMCA asked why a DoLS authorisation had not been applied for if A was being prevented from leaving the ward. The discharge liaison officer said that she had spoken to the supervisory body about this issue and had been told that a DoLS authorisation was not required for A.
  • The IMCA put proposed options to A. He was happy with the suggestion of living in a residential setting on a temporary basis. However, A explained that he would like to be able to access the community and that he was not able to leave hospital.


The IMCA represented A's wishes and views, and also raised concerns around his de facto detention. A Best Interest Assessor went to see A and recommended to the supervisory body that an authorisation should be put in place.

The IMCA continued to act as a safeguard for A and ensure that not only is he fully represented, but that the MCA 2005 Code of Practice is being adhered to correctly.

Previous Case Study Next Case Study