Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions during a period in 2020 when Mr B was providing care to his aunt, Ms C. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council’s response or make a finding of the kind Mr B wants.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained about the Council’s actions when in 2020 he provided his aunt, Ms C with care and support. Mr B says the Council broke the law and breached GDPR and human rights legislation, told him he must quit his job abroad which resulted in him losing his employment and European status, did not suggest Ms C could have food delivered and says she was denied her basic rights.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council responded to Mr B’s complaint in September 2020. It said Ms C was now living in a care home and although he had contacted in June 2020 to say his mother, Ms C’s carer, was in hospital it found no evidence to suggest it asked Mr B to step in and act as Ms C’s carer. It said it did not tell Mr B to quit his job to provide care to Ms C and did not accept responsibility for his loss of income. The Council apologised it did not tell Mr B it had assessed Ms C and found her not to be at risk in the absence of her carer.
7. We have not seen any evidence to suggest Mr B was told by the Council he must not move abroad and should provide care to Ms C. In the absence of evidence, we could not make a finding that Mr B was told to quit his job even if we investigated. Mr B raised a number of concerns about the care provided to Ms C. Further investigation by the Ombudsman could not add to the Care Provider’s response. Ms C has been living in a care home since 2020 so there is no significant or ongoing injustice for us to investigate.
8. Mr B is concerned there has been a breach of data. It would be responsible for Mr B to ask the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider his concerns about breaches of data.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because further investigation could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mr B wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman