Summary: Mr B complains about the actions of the Council in connection with his incapacitated father for whom it acted under a deputyship. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because the substantive issues fall outside our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the Council has been at fault in how it has dealt with him in connection with his incapacitated father for whom it previously had deputyship for and on whose behalf it acted. Mr B says he wants the Council to stop lying and to improve its service and for factually incorrect information in its records to be corrected.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. In considering the complaint I spoke to Mr B and reviewed the information he and the Council provided. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said and the additional information he provided.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr B’s elderly father, who I refer to as Mr X, cannot manage his own affairs. Originally Mr B held Power of Attorney for Mr X which meant he acted on Mr X’s behalf.
8. In 2017 the Power of Attorney was taken from Mr B and instead the Council took over as Deputy for Mr X’s affairs and acted on his behalf.
9. There had been a dispute between Mr B and the Council around the Council’s role as Deputy. This culminated in the Court of Protection hearing Mr B’s application to remove the Council as Deputy and Mr X is now represented by an independent solicitor.
10. Mr B says he complained to the Council in February 2018 and that he did not receive a response. He also made a further complaint about a year later around the time of the court application. The Council responded to this complaint to address matters not covered by the court case.
11. Dissatisfied with the Council’s responses to his complaint, Mr B complained to the Ombudsman.

Assessment

12. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. Much of what Mr B has complained about would have been considered by the court at the time of the hearing and, by law, we are unable to investigate complaints about these same matters as they fall outside our jurisdiction.
13. Moreover, many of the issues which Mr B complains about relate to past events from as far back as 2017 and it is too late for us to investigate them now and I see no grounds for exercising discretion to do so.
14. Mr B says he wants the Council to improve its service and to stop lying and that it should correct any incorrect information it holds on its files. He gave me the example that the Council has wrongly recorded the nature of his father’s past employment. However, the Information Commissioner is best placed to consider matters relating to data protection. Mr B can contact the ICO about any incorrect information the Council holds about him personally and the solicitor now acting for Mr X can decide what action is appropriate for Mr X.
15. In responding to my draft decision, Mr B has referred to his original complaint made in January 2018 and says this was made prior to the Council being involved in any court proceedings. However, the Council did not progress this complaint because Mr B failed to send in further details about the complaint as he had indicated he would.
16. Mr B says he raised his complaint again in May 2019 and that the matters he was complaining about were not discussed during the court hearing because the Council quickly gave up its deputyship and they were matters which would not have been resolved in a court of law. However, the complaint Mr B made in May 2019 was a complaint which stated Council fault had caused his father various forms of injustice and, as Mr B does not act for Mr X, it would be for Mr X’s court appointed representative to act for him in bringing any complaint the representative thinks appropriate on Mr X’s behalf. This would also be the case in relation to Mr B’s allegation that the Council has misinterpreted the court order.

Back to top

Final decision

17. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the substantive issues fall outside our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman