The story begins in the Bristol Intensive Rehabilitation Unit (BIRU), run by the private provider Active Care Group.

Within the first week, both patient and family recognised that the environment was not suitable. They asked — clearly, repeatedly — for discharge as soon as possible.

Bristol City Council agreed. They said it would be arranged "quickly."

It wasn't.

Three Months Later: Still Waiting

Weeks dragged into months. Families chased. Promises evaporated. Meetings were scheduled, rescheduled, and left without outcomes.

Finally — after three months — a discharge date appeared.

Relief was short-lived.

Instead of Discharging, a DoLS Order Appeared

Out of nowhere, Bristol Council issued a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisation — a powerful legal measure intended to protect people who lack capacity.

But here, the timing raised serious systemic questions:

• The patient had already asked to leave.
• The family had already asked to leave.
• The Council had already agreed to discharge.

From the outside, it looked like a mechanism that halted discharge rather than enabling it.

Why Would a Discharge Be Stopped?

Bristol Council categorised the situation as a "complex discharge." Yet there was:

• no evidence of an actual discharge plan,
• no coordinated pathway,
• no clear rationale for the delays.

What did exist were clear financial incentives:

• The Council avoided approximately £22,000 in social care costs.
• BIRU continued receiving NHS rehabilitation funding for six months.
• The estimated NHS spend exceeded £100,000.

The Outcome Speaks for Itself

Whether or not anyone intended it, the final result was this:

• The patient remained in BIRU for six months.
• NHS funding flowed to Active Care Group throughout.
• The Council avoided major care costs.
• And the family's wishes were effectively sidelined.

Systems don't need conspiracy to harm people — just misaligned incentives and no one brave enough to challenge them.