Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care. This is because the Council made decisions about the care support under the best interest decision process of the Mental Capacity Act. Any challenge to that would need to be through the court of protection. Any injustice to the complainant is not enough to justify our involvement. The Information Commissioner’s Office would be better placed to consider concerns about breaches of personal data.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council ignored her concerns about the care of her relative, Ms C. Ms B says the Council shared personal data with a third party without her consent. Ms B feels in the dark about what is being decided in Ms C’s best interests and wants the Council to honestly answer her questions.

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, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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. 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. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
6. The Council’s duty is to meet Ms C’s adult social care needs, which are met by 24-hour care at home from a live-in care worker. I appreciate poor communication may cause Ms B frustration and distress, but that is not enough to justify the Ombudsman’s resource to investigate.
7. Ms C cannot make her own decisions about her care. The Council followed the correct process under the Mental Capacity Act to make decisions in her best interests, properly including Ms B and other family members. If Ms B does not agree with the decisions about Ms C’s care support, she can challenge this at the Court of Protection.
8. Ms B could apply to court to become Ms C’s deputy for health and welfare. Ms B says the Council will not help with the paperwork. This would be a private application, and the Council has no duty to be involved.
9. Ms B says the Council shared her personal data without her consent. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights. The ICO is better placed to consider concerns about data protection.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because there is not enough injustice to justify our involvement, and there are other bodies better placed to consider the concerns.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman