Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about potential financial mismanagement by an adult social care provider the Council arranged. The financial issues are being considered by the Department for Work and Pensions who are better placed to investigate. The Council has acknowledged the impact on the complainant from it delays and failures to update by apologising. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would add to that or reach a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council failed to safeguard Mr C from financial abuse by a care provider it commissioned. Ms B says the Council missed opportunities in Mr C’s lifetime. Ms B has found the complaint process lengthy and frustrating.

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 impact 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council was responsible to meet Mr C’s adult social care needs. The Council placed Mr C out of borough. The relevant safeguarding authority is the council where Mr C lived. That council did not conduct a safeguarding enquiry when the issues were brought to its attention; Ms B can make a separate complaint to that council if she wishes to pursue that.
6. The concerns about financial mismanagement are under consideration by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). This is because the concerns are about Mr C’s benefit appointee. The DWP was responsible for choosing and monitoring the appointee. The Council has told Ms B it is for the DWP to take forward.
7. We do not investigate all complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining.
8. Any significant injustice is to Mr C who the Ombudsman can no longer provide any remedy to. The alleged injustice is financial which the DWP is investigating. The police are the responsible body to investigate allegations of theft, the police decided there was not enough evidence for it to continue. It is unlikely we would add to investigations that have been considered or are underway.
9. The Council accepts it has taken a long time to consider the issues, and it could have progressed quicker. This will have caused some unnecessary time, trouble, and frustration to Ms B. The Council has apologised to Ms B for its delay and lack of updates, it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further. It is also not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.
10. Ms B also raises a concern of libel. That is a legal matter and not one for the Council or Ombudsman to investigate. Ms B can seek legal advice.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. The claimed financial injustice is being investigated by the DWP who are better placed to consider these issues. The Council has acknowledged Ms B’s injustice by apologising to her, it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would reach a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman