Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an email from the Council’s adult social care department which Mr X says was accusatory and threatening. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and any injustice caused is not significant enough to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council threatened him with a safeguarding enquiry and a Court of Protection application if he did not provide information. He said the Council did not explain the basis of allegations against him or accept its email had been accusatory and coercive.
2. Mr X said this caused distress to him and the wider family, and has left them being unfairly accused without the opportunity to resolve the matter constructively.
3. Mr X wanted a written apology, disclosure of the allegation and related records, assurances of how the case will be handled going forward and service improvements. He also wants the Council to pay him a financial remedy to recognise his stress and inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X is his mother’s (Mrs Y’s) court-appointed deputy for property and affairs. At the time of the events he complains about, he was in the process of applying to the Court of Protection for deputyship after his brother, the previous attorney, had died. Mr X’s brother had entered into a Deferred Payment Agreement on Mrs Y’s behalf, which meant a loan was secured against her property to cover the cost of her care.
9. Mr X’s complaint relates to an email he received from the Council in late 2025, which he considered inappropriate and disproportionate. The email said the Council had received complaints about the condition of Mrs Y’s property and allegations that Mrs Y’s family were hiding assets from the Council. It requested Mr X share the contact details for an environmental health officer he said he had been working with, as well as the solicitor who was handling his deputyship application. It explained that if Mr X did not provide the requested details, the Council intended to open a Section 42 safeguarding enquiry, and to make an application to the Court of Protection.
10. Mr X complained to the Council. The Council explained in its complaint response that while it acknowledged Mr X’s distress and that he had found the request intrusive, it had intended to be transparent about the steps it would need to take should Mr X not provide the details it requested. Given the allegations the Council had received, it had a duty to consider the matter further and it made enquiries to enable it to do so. Had the Council been concerned about financial abuse, it would have been entitled to open a safeguarding enquiry and refer the matter to the Court of Protection.
11. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. While Mr X did not believe the tone of the email in question was appropriate and disagrees the information the Council requested was proportionate, this does not make its actions fault.
12. In any event, any injustice caused by the email at the heart of this complaint is not significant enough to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman. Mr X says the email caused significant distress. However, the Council had not come to any conclusions at that point and the email communicated an allegation only.
13. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is best placed to consider Mr X’s request the Council discloses information about the allegations. If he has not already done so, he can make a Subject Access Request to the Council as the subject of the allegations. It is open to him to escalate the matter to the ICO should he be dissatisfied with the Council’s response.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, and any injustice caused is not significant enough to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman