Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council not responding to her enquires about her mother, Mrs C, for four years. This is because as Mrs C’s attorney, Mrs B had the right to ask the Court of Protection to consider her concerns about Mrs C and it would have been reasonable for her to do so.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained when her mother, Mrs C, was removed from her care and taken back to live in Norfolk. Mrs B complained the Council did not advise her where it had taken Mrs C or respond to her enquiries about her. Mrs B says she has not had contact with Mrs C for four years and it was only after she received information from a Subject Access Request (SAR) she realised it had not accepted her as a Power of Attorney and did not follow up its own referral with the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) which would have confirmed this. Mrs B says the Court of Protection has now determined she is one of three Powers of Attorney for Mrs C and granted her the information she has been requesting for four years, so she is now able to arrange to visit Mrs C.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. The complainant had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council says following Mrs B’s initial contact in 2019 it contacted the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) to check whether she had Power of Attorney (POA) for Mrs C to determine what information should be shared with her. It acknowledged the contact should have been placed on a holding list awaiting information but was not. Consequently, it was not followed up. The Council apologised for the oversight and for any distress this caused. It advised Mrs B this has been addressed with the individuals concerned in order to avoid a similar occurrence happening again in the future. We could not add to this or make a different finding even if we investigated.
8. Mrs B says she has been denied access to Mrs C for the past four years because of the Council’s actions. However, as one of Mrs C’s Powers of Attorney it was Mrs B’s responsibility to ensure she knew where Mrs C was living and that she was receiving appropriate care. While it was fault by the Council not to follow up its referral to the OPG, Mrs B could have contacted the Court of Protection four years ago to consider the Council’s lack of response to her concerns and it would have been reasonable for her do so.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Mrs B to ask the Court of Protection to consider her concerns about the Council’s failure to provide her with information about Mrs C.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman