Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to notify him and his brother Mr Y of their brother’s death. The Council is not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to notify him and his brother Mr Y of their brother’s death.
2. He also says the Council delayed notifying his late brother’s solicitor of his passing.
3. Mr X says this caused them unnecessary distress. He also says this caused Mr Y financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke to Mr X about the complaint.
7. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
8. Mr X, Mr Y, and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

9. Mr X’s brother, whom I shall call Mr Z, died in December 2019.
10. Mr X and Mr Y did not find out about their brother’s death until three weeks later. Mr X asked the police to visit Mr Z because he hadn’t been able to contact him. The police told Mr X that Mr Z was deceased.
11. Because they had not known of the death, neither Mr X nor Mr Y were able to contribute to the inquiry by the Coroner.
12. Mr Z had vascular dementia. He lived alone. His son, whom I shall call Mr B, visited him regularly. Mr B has a mental health condition. He has a social worker who supports him.
13. In 2018, Mr Z told the Council he didn’t want it to share any information about him with Mr X or Mr Y. The Council assessed whether Mr Z had the mental capacity to make this decision. It decided he did.
14. The Council was the court appointed deputy for Mr Z’s property and affairs. This means the Council managed Mr Z’s savings and income and paid his bills. The Court of Protection decided Mr Z needed a deputy because he didn’t have the mental capacity to make decisions about money himself.

My findings

15. Mr X and Mr Y say the Council had a responsibility to tell them that Mr Z had died. However, Mr Z had told the Council not to share information with them. The Council decided Mr B, who was aware of his father’s death, could make the necessary arrangements.
16. There is no statutory duty or expectation for councils to notify family members of a service user’s death. Although Mr X and Mr Y are understandably distressed they did not know their brother was dead for three weeks, there is no fault in the Council’s actions.
17. Mr Y has an interest in a property also owned by Mr Z. Mr Y says that on Mr Z’s death, the debt on this property became payable. He says the Council, as Mr Y’s deputy, had a responsibility to inform him.
18. The law says that when a person with a deputy dies, the deputyship ends. The only requirement is to notify the Office of the Public Guardian of the death.
19. Therefore, there is no fault in the Council, in its role as deputy, not telling Mr Y about Mr Z’s death.
20. Mr X says the Council delayed telling Mr Z’s solicitor about Mr Z’s death for several weeks. There is no requirement for the Council, as deputy, to tell a solicitor about the death of a client.
21. There may be a requirement for the Office of the Public Guardian to contact a legal representative on the death of a person with a deputy. However, the actions of this Office are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have completed my investigation. There is no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman