Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s actions in placing a charge on his father-in-law’s property without consulting Mr X when Mr X held Power of Attorney for him. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because old events fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and because an investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X, acting as executor for his late father-in-law, who I shall refer to as Mr B, says the Council put a charge on Mr B’s property after making him sign a document when it knew he and Mr X’s wife had Power of Attorney (PoA) for Mr B as he was unable to manage his own finances. Mr X says this should not have happened and that it has led him to believe Mr B was coerced or bullied by the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s responses to the complaint. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. In 2018 various works took place at Mr B’s property to allow him to be safely discharged back to live in it. The Council placed a Land Charge of £800 on the property to cover the cost of the works.
6. Council case records note that having initially met with Council officers at Mr B’s property in 2018 and been involved in discussions about the works, Mr X then told the Council he no longer wanted to be involved and that all future contact should be with Mr B’s son.
7. Mr B died in 2020 and Mr X then made a complaint to the Council saying that in 2018 he had told the officer dealing with Mr B’s case that he had PoA for Mr B and that he would not have allowed the work to be carried out. Mr X also alleged that the Council, in obtaining Mr X’s signature for the works and Land Charge, bullied him and took this action without the knowledge of the family.
8. The Council responded under the two stages of its complaints procedure. At Stage 1 it set out what its case records said had taken place in 2018 and stated that no-one had raised concerns about Mr B’s capacity to agree to the works and the charge nor did the Council have reason to doubt his capacity. It also commented that it had no record of Mr X stating he had PoA for Mr B or that he had provided a copy of it.
9. At Stage 2 the Council noted that the first time it received evidence of the PoA was when Mr X sent it in after the Stage 1 response. It confirmed the social care records for Mr B at the time indicated he had been assessed as having capacity and that it had found no evidence to support Mr X’s allegation of bullying. It confirmed his complaint had not been upheld.

Assessment

10. According to the Council’s contemporaneous records, Mr X was initially involved in 2018 but then said he no longer wished to be involved and left future Council contact to be with Mr B’s son. If Mr X had been concerned about works being undertaken at this time, or that the Council had not responded appropriately when he advised it that he was acting for Mr B under a PoA, he could have made a complaint at the time. He did not do so and the restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to these past events and I see no grounds which warrant exercising discretion to investigate them now.
11. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest there was fault in the way the Council dealt with this matter and Mr X has not provided any evidence to support his allegation of coercion and bullying.
12. In responding to my draft decision Mr X says the Council did know about the PoA and that it was not qualified to assess Mr B’s capacity. He questions the Council’s motives in its dealings with Mr B, stating he could not agree with the requests made of Mr B in connection with the works. He also says the Council did not talk to the relatives. However, had these been his concerns, he could have raised them with the Council and made a complaint at the time.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because old events fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and because an investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman