Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council treated an attorney when making decisions about the donor’s adult social care. We are satisfied with the Council’s apology and offer of £150. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further, and there is insufficient outstanding injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council has disempowered her in her role as a lasting power of attorney. The Council delayed responding to her complaint, was dismissive and factually wrong in its response. This has caused severe emotional distress. Ms B wants the Council to acknowledge the impact of its actions and apologise.

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.

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

3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms B is one of three attorneys for Ms C’s heath and welfare. When the Council was deciding how best to meet Ms C’s adult social care needs, Ms B felt the Council did not listen to her voice and preferred the views of others.
7. The Council followed the best interest process under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 because Ms C cannot make her own decision about her long-term care. The Council involved all Ms C’s attorneys in the best interest meetings.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We cannot challenge the Council’s decision unless there is fault in its decision making. In this case, I am satisfied the Council followed the correct best interest process and involved the relevant people. Ms B might disagree with the decision, but this is not evidence of fault. Ms B can challenge decisions about how best to meet Ms C’s needs by going to the Court of Protection.
9. The Council gave a thorough response to Ms B’s complaint which I think it is unlikely we would add to. It acknowledged Ms B’s distress and apologised there were times she felt unsupported. The Council accepted delay in its complaint response and offered £150 to acknowledge Ms B’s avoidable time and trouble.
10. Although Ms B says there are factual errors, any injustice caused by this is not enough to justify an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because it is unlikely we would achieve anything further. Although Ms B says there were errors in what the Council said, that would not cause enough injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation. The Council has acknowledged the impact of its delay, and I am satisfied with the action it proposed to take.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman