Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council has not managed her father’s house properly as it left the house to rot and fall into a state of disrepair, and refused to allow her access to the property to manage it. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, Ms X is not a suitable representative to make the complaint on Mr Z’s behalf.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has not managed her father’s house properly as it left the house to rot and fall into a state of disrepair. She also complains the Council refused to allow her access to the property to manage it and has now refused to provide her with documents to allow her to make an application for deputyship.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, 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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X’s father, Mr Z, has been known to the Council since 2020. In December 2023, Mr X was detained in hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983.
6. In February 2024, the Council completed a care assessment. Records showed the Council considered Mr Z’s family and personal relationships as part of the care assessment. It was noted that Mr Z had four children, but that he did not have any relationship with them due to personal circumstances that occurred when the children were young.
7. In August 2024, the Council completed mental capacity assessments to determine Mr Z’s capacity to make decisions about his care and accommodation and financial and property affairs. The outcome was that Mr Z lacked capacity.
8. In August 2025, a further mental capacity assessments were completed to determine Mr Z’s capacity to manage his financial and property affairs. The outcome of the assessment was that Mr Z lacked capacity to make decisions about the management of his property and finances and whether a deputy should be appointed from the Office of the Public Guardian’s (OPG) panel of solicitors.
9. The Council therefore completed a best interest decision to decide how to proceed. Ms X was consulted as part of this. The records showed consideration to views Mr Z had consistently expressed to the Council throughout its interactions with him, as well as views from Mr Z’s neighbour and friends. The outcome was it was in Mr Z’s best interest to legally appoint a professional to manage his property and financial affairs, and for the Council to make the application to the Court of Protection.
10. An investigation is not justified as the Council has completed appropriate mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions before making decision on how to proceed with Mr Z’s care and support and management of his property and financial affairs. The Council has a clear rationale for its decision to proceed with an application to the Court of Protection. Therefore, we could not find fault with the Council’s decision not to allow Ms X to access or manage the property on her father’s behalf.
11. Further, it is open to Ms X to challenge the Council’s application to the Court of Protection to be appointed deputy to manage Mr Z’s property and finances. I am satisfied the Court of Protection is the appropriate body to determine who should manage Mr Z’s property and financial affairs.
12. I acknowledge Ms X has expressed her wish to apply to become her father’s deputy to allow her to manage Mr Z’s property and financial affairs. She says the Council has refused to provide her with the required documents to allow her to proceed with her application. However, this is a complaint about information handling (refusal to disclose information) and so this complaint is best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office. Therefore, we will not investigate.
13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr Z’s property. This is because this is a complaint made on behalf of Mr Z. Having considered the information provided by the Council, including Mr Z’s consistently expressed views about his relationship with his family, I am not satisfied Ms X is a suitable representative to make this complaint on behalf of Mr Z.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate some of Ms X’s complaints because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, Ms X is not a suitable representative to make the complaint on Mr Z’s behalf.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman