Summary: Ms X complains about the way she was treated by a Council social worker while dealing with her sister’s care. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation in unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, complains about the way she was treated by a social worker involved in her sister’s care. She says the social worker did not speak to her prior to a meeting called about her sister; did not obtain relevant information in advance and threatened her with court action. She also complains she had to chase up the response to her complaints.

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
• 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Ms X and the Council. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms X’s sister, who I refer to as Ms Q, has dementia and lives in assisted living accommodation. Ms X holds Power of Attorney for her for both property and finance and health and welfare.
5. Ms Q made it known to carers at the accommodation that she wanted to see her bank statements. The manager notified Ms Q’s social worker, Ms C, of this and Ms C called a meeting. Present at the meeting were Ms Q, Ms X and the manager, with Ms C joining via a phone line.
6. During the meeting Ms C said that if Ms Q asked to be provided with money and bank statements then she had a right to have them and that ultimately a failure to give them to her could be the subject of a court case.
7. After the meeting, upset at how she had been treated by Ms C, Ms X complained to the Council highlighting her concerns that she had not been contacted by Ms C prior to the meeting, that Ms C had not familiarised herself properly with Ms Q’s case and that she had been threatened with legal action and treated as if she had something to hide.
8. The Council addressed the complaint at two stages of its complaints procedure. It responded to the individual points Ms X had raised and while it acknowledged the way and speed with which the meeting had been called could have been handled better, it did not uphold her complaint. It apologised for the delay in responding to her and offered its sincere apologies for her experience. It also passed on to Ms X sincere apologies from Ms C who explained she had not intended to cause upset.
9. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Ms X complained to the Ombudsman.

Assessment

10. It is clear Ms X has been greatly upset by what took place around the meeting, particularly when she has been so involved in caring for and supporting Ms Q. The Council and Ms C have given apologies to Ms X and, while I note Ms X is not satisfied with this, I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
11. In responding to my draft decision, Ms X says she wants further clarification about the Council’s comment that the way and speed with which the meeting was called could have been handled better. However, this is not a matter we would pursue as there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation.
12. Ms X’s comments that she had previously provided a copy of the Power of Attorney she holds for Ms Q and that had Ms C spoken to her prior to the meeting she would have been better informed about Ms Q were matters I had considered as Ms X had raised them in her complaint to the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation in unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman