Summary: Mrs X is the shared carer for an adult, Miss A. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delay in the Council taking action to finalise who will manage Miss A’s financial matters. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X is the shared carer for an adult, Miss A. She complains about delay in the Council taking action to finalise who will manage Miss A’s financial matters.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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. Mrs X was Ms A’s foster carer since 2016. Mrs X was Ms A’s Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) appointee. This meant Mrs X managed Ms A’s benefits and day to day finances.
6. In December 2021, after Ms A turned 18, Mrs X became Ms A’s shared lives carer. Shared lives schemes support adults with learning disabilities that make it harder for them to live on their own. The scheme matches someone who needs care with an approved carer. The carer shares their family and community life and gives care and support to the person with care needs.
7. In February 2022, the Council told Mrs X she could not continue to manage Ms A’s finances. This was because it was shared lives policy for carers not to manage the finances of someone they cared for.
8. If we were to investigate, it is likely we would find fault causing injustice. This is because the Council has been aware of the conflict in interest in Mrs X remaining Miss A’s appointee since February 2022. Therefore, the Council reasonably knew another individual was needed to manage Miss A’s finances. However, the Council did not submit the Court of Protection paperwork until June 2023, over a year later.
9. Miss X says the delay has meant the timing of the legal proceedings coincided with Miss A leaving colleague and that this was an additional stressor for her, which caused Miss A distress. Miss X described some of the behaviours Miss A exhibited which she felt was a result of the delay.
10. I accept that Mrs X’s continued support in managing Miss A’s finances will have mitigated some of the impact of the delay in the Council starting legal proceedings. However, while I cannot say the delay was the direct cause for Miss A’s behaviours, I am satisfied the delays will have caused some uncertainty. This is because it is not possible to say if the distress caused to Miss A would have been lessened if the Council had acted more promptly.
11. We therefore asked the Council to consider remedying the injustice caused by the delay by making a symbolic financial payment of £200.

Back to top

Agreed action

12. To its credit, the Council agreed to resolve the complaint and will complete the above within four weeks of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman