Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to appoint an Independent Mental Health Advocate. The Court of Protection is best placed to consider the dispute, and the injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. X complains the Council removed them as Y’s representative and replaced them with an Independent Mental Health Advocate (IMHA). X says the decision undermines them and is a bureaucratic overreach. X wants the Council to reverse the decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

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

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. Y is subject to deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS). X is Y’s sibling and, for many years, was Y’s appointed representative. In 2025, following a best interest’s assessment, the Council used its DoLS authority to appoint an IMHA to represent Y.
7. X disagrees with the Council's decision about who should represent Y in relation to the deprivation of liberty safeguards. The Court of Protection is the body with the power to determine disputes concerning X's representation and welfare. We would normally expect such matters to be considered by the Court. I have seen nothing to suggest it would have been unreasonable for X, as Y’s sibling, to ask the Court to consider this decision, and so I will not exercise my discretion to investigate this complaint.
8. In any case, our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures.
9. I have seen no evidence the Council’s decision to appoint an IMHA, at no cost to X or Y, has caused Y any significant injustice that warrants our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate X’s complaint because the Court of Protection is best placed to consider the dispute, and the injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman