Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to involve Mr X in decision relating to his uncle’s care and support. He also complains about the Council’s management of his uncle’s finances. This is because the alleged faults have not caused any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to involve him in decisions related to his uncle’s care and support. He also complains about the Council’s management of his uncle’s finances.

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 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X said his uncle, Mr Z, sold his house in December 2020. Mr X says Mr Z received around £45,000 from the sale.
6. Mr Z then moved to the Council’s area. Mr X said Mr Z was influenced by his stepdaughter, Ms W, to move and that this was done without any of Mr Z’s family being informed.
7. In January 2022, the Council was notified by the hospital that Mr Z was due to be discharged to a nursing home. The information provided to the Council noted that Ms W was Mr Z’s stepdaughter. The Council explained that at this point, it was not aware of any other family members and that the only contact information for next of kin it had was for Ms W and Mr Z’s partner.
8. At the end of February 2022, Ms W provided the Council with contact information for one of Mr Z’s relative. The Council contacted this relative and was passed the contact details of Mr X. On the same day, the Council contacted Mr X.
9. The Council completed a mental capacity assessment for Mr Z which determined he lacked capacity to manage his finances. The Council referred Mr Z to its finance safeguarding team to manage his finances. The team made an application to the Court of Protection to obtain deputyship, but Mr Z passed away before the application was processed. The Council said it had several conversations with Mr X about the referral to the financial safeguarding team.
10. Mr X is concerned about the will that was created shortly after Mr Z’s move to the Council’s area. If Mr X believed the will to have been created fraudulently, he could have contested it and challenged it in court. The Ombudsman could not make any comment on the validity of a will as it is not within our remit to do so.
11. An investigation is not justified as the alleged fault has not cause any significant injustice. This is because Mr X’s main concern appears to be around Mr Z’s finances, specifically that the Council did not appear to have known about the money from the sale of Mr Z’s property.
12. However, this alleged fault will not have caused any injustice to Mr Z. In fact, Mr Z would have benefitted as the Council ended up part funding Mr Z’s care placement. If the Council had been aware of the £45,000, then Mr Z would have been responsible for the full cost of his care. Therefore, it appears likely Mr Z has paid less towards the cost of his care and support than he should have.
13. Any allegation of Ms W having stolen Mr Z’s money is not a matter for the Council. It is open to Mr X to report this to the Police as this is an allegation of a criminal offence.
14. I also do not consider an investigation is justified to consider Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not involve him in decisions about Mr Z’s care and support placement. The evidence available suggests the Council did contact Mr X as soon as it became aware of his relationship with Mr Z. There is no evidence Mr X raised any concerns about Mr Z’s care placement, which would suggest Mr X was content with the placement itself. Therefore, the alleged fault has not caused any significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the alleged faults have not caused any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman