Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his brother’s social worker. This is because an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add significantly, if at all, to the response already provided via the Council’s investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I call Mr X, complains about the actions of his brother’s social worker.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr X provided in his complaint. I also considered information from the Council including its complaint correspondence. I sent Mr X a copy of my draft decision and discussed it with him over the telephone.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X complains about his adult brother’s (Mr Y’s) social worker. Mr Y has an acquired brain injury. Mr X says Mr Y also has a form of alcohol related brain damage.
6. In early 2019, Mr X phoned Mr Y’s social worker to enquire about his brother after he found out he had been sectioned. Mr X complained the social worker failed to contact him when she said she would and failed to provide information he had requested about Mr Y.
7. Mr X says the social worker had previously been allocated his brother’s case several years ago and had recently been reallocated his case. Mr X says the social worker was uncooperative and unfriendly and he recalled similar issues from his previous contact with her. He asked the Council to allocate Mr Y a different social worker.
8. The Council partially upheld Mr X’s complaint the social worker failed to contact him when she said she would. There was no significant delay or injustice caused by this as Mr X phoned the social worker himself on the second of the two days the social worker said she would call. The social worker apologised for not calling sooner.
9. The Council also partially upheld Mr X’s complaints about what information the social worker provided him with about Mr Y. It acknowledged some additional information could have been communicated to Mr X at the time.
10. The Council acknowledged there may be difficulties with Mr X’s and the social worker’s relationship following lengthy Court of Protection involvement several years ago when some claims were made against Mr X. However, it considers it to be in Mr Y’s best interests for the social worker to continue working with him as Mr Y trusts her and they have a good relationship.
11. The Council has confirmed that although Mr Y lacks capacity to decide some matters, he does have capacity to make decisions around family life and friends. The Council has told Mr X that as he is not Mr Y’s appointee it will not consider any further matters he raises without Mr Y’s written consent nor will it consider any historical matters.
12. Mr X says he is sure he was previously an appointee for Mr Y. However, he does not currently hold any formal status to act on Mr Y’s behalf. Nor has Mr Y consented to Mr X acting as his representative or for the Council to share all his personal information with him. Mr X and Mr Y have only had limited contact over the past few years and this has been telephone contact only.
13. Mr Y has agreed that some information about his wellbeing can be shared with Mr X in the future.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add significantly to the response already provided by the Council’s investigation. It partially upheld the complaints about the social worker’s delay in calling and about the information shared and there is nothing further the Ombudsman would add to the responses provided. The Council has explained why it will not change Mr Y’s social worker. There is no sign of fault here and it is a decision the Council is entitled to make.
15. As Mr X has no formal status to act for Mr Y there is no fault in the Council’s position explaining it would need Mr Y’s written consent to consider any additional matters Mr X may raise.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman