Summary: Mr B complained about the actions the Council took to manage his mother in law’s (Mrs C) finances when she lost the capacity to do so herself. We have not found fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that Salford City Council (the Council), in respect of Mr B’s mother-in-law, Mrs C:
• delayed in becoming an appointee for Mrs C’s financial affairs following suspected financial abuse;
• failed to provide advice to Mrs C’s family about how to access Mrs C’s money for her everyday living costs and bills, after her bank account was frozen;
• misled the family that any money they spent would be refunded once the Council became an appointee;
• failed to keep the family updated in respect of the progress of the safeguarding investigation.
2. This situation has caused Mr B and his wife, Mrs B significant frustration, distress and financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

5. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr B 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

6. Mrs C is elderly and lived alone in sheltered accommodation. Nobody has power of attorney for her (legal authority to act on behalf of someone to make decisions if they are no longer able to do so). She has a large family with a number of children and grandchildren who are all concerned for her wellbeing.
7. In January 2022 Mr and Mrs B’s daughter (Mrs C’s granddaughter), Ms D first raised concerns about possible financial abuse of Mrs C by other family members. At this point the family felt Mrs C had capacity to make financial decisions. The Council gave Ms D some advice but felt it was primarily a matter for the police.
8. In March 2022 Ms D contacted the Council again with further allegations of financial abuse and said that Mrs C no longer had capacity to make decisions about her finances. The bank had frozen Mrs C’s bank accounts and the family could not afford to apply to the Court of Protection. The Council decided to treat it as a safeguarding matter and arranged a strategy meeting.
9. One of Mrs C’s children told the Council they could no longer do the shopping for Mrs C as they could not access money from her bank account. The Council made an immediate referral to an organisation for shopping vouchers for Mrs C.
10. The strategy meeting took place on 17 March 2022 with a social worker (SW1), team manager and the police to consider the safeguarding concern. The police said it was difficult to take further action about the alleged abuse if Mrs C had capacity at the time. The Council agreed to refer Mrs C to its Client Affairs Team (CAT) to manage Mrs C’s finances. This meant CAT would apply to the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) to receive Mrs C’s pension and benefits and mange the funds on her behalf. It would not give the Council access to Mrs C’s frozen bank accounts. The Council also agreed to speak to the other family members and carry out a capacity assessment of Mrs C.
11. SW1 visited Mrs C to do the capacity assessment the next day. She concluded that Mrs C did not have capacity to manage her finances. SW1 also updated Mrs B and Ms D about the strategy meeting. She advised them to keep all receipts for any items purchased and once the appointeeship was in place they could discuss reimbursement with CAT.
12. CAT applied to the DWP on 23 March 2022 and thought it would take about six to eight weeks to process, so it expected a response from the DWP in mid-May 2022. CAT emphasised to SW1 that until they were appointees they had no access to Mrs C’s benefits and could not supply any funds. Once they were appointees they will not have access to any other funds such as savings or bank accounts.
13. SW1 updated all family members after the strategy meeting. Following further conflicting allegations of financial abuse from different family members SW1 arranged for Mrs C’s cleaning and shopping to be done by a care agency. SW1 also asked CAT to confirm whether the family could be reimbursed for any money spent on Mrs C in the interim. CAT advised that family members could request to be reimbursed but this could only be paid once they were in receipt of Mrs C’s benefits SW1 relayed this information to Mrs B and Mrs B gave SW1 some of Mrs C’s bills which needed paying.
14. CAT chased the DWP on 26 May 2022 as it had not received any response. On 31 May 2022 CAT became appointees for Mrs C’s disability benefit but not her pension.
15. In June 2022 Mrs B was getting frustrated at the length of time it was taking for the Council to take control of Mrs C’s pension. SW1 gave her advice about contacting the Court of Protection to access Mrs C’s bank accounts. SW1 forwarded Mrs B’s receipts to CAT for reimbursement. She also requested a regular payment for Mrs C's daily living costs.
16. CAT sent SW1 an expenditure form for the family to complete on Mrs C’s behalf and CAT could then arrange for regular payments to be made. There was some confusion over receipt of the form due to an officer leaving but this was received on 27 July 2022. CAT also chase the DWP again regarding the pension appointeeship.
17. Mr B complained to the Council in August 2022 about not being reimbursed for the food shopping and other costs. The Council replied saying that it was chasing the DWP and Mrs B had advised another family member was doing shopping for Mrs C. SW1 again requested regular payments for Mrs C’s shopping.
18. On 12 August 2022 the CAT became appointees for Mrs C’s pension, and it started regular payments for food shortly after this.
19. Mr B complained again about the time taken to resolve this issue and refund the money they were owed. CAT confirmed the receipts provided by Mr and Mrs B totalled approximately £1000. CAT said it did not hold sufficient money at that time to pay her bills and cover this refund and would have to wait for a sum to accumulate.
20. During September, CAT paid Mrs C ‘s outstanding bills and again confirmed to Mrs B that it would reimburse her costs once Mrs C had sufficient money to do so. Mrs B did purchase some furniture for Mrs C and Cat refunded this when she provided the receipt.
21. In October 2022 the Council responded to the complaint. It explained that the timescales for processing the appointeeship application was outside of the Council’s control. It apologised for not informing Mr and Mrs B of these timescales. Once it was an appointee it only had access to Mrs C’s money from that date and could not automatically cover any costs incurred prior to this date. However, once the bills were up to date it would consider making some payments back to cover the receipts provided.
22. On 13 January 2023 the Council refunded Mrs B the outstanding money.

Analysis

delayed in becoming an appointee for Mrs C’s financial affairs

23. The Council acted promptly in March 2022 when the family considered Mrs C had lost capacity. It carried out its own capacity assessment, arranged for shopping vouchers, held a strategy meeting with the police and decided to apply for the Council to be appointees for Mrs C’s finances. It made the application within two weeks of the strategy meeting. I have not identified any delay in this process.
24. The DWP, not the Council, was responsible for the subsequent delay in obtaining appointeeship for Mrs C’s finances. The Council chased the DWP appropriately on two occasions and the appointeeship was fully resolved by mid-August 2022.

failed to provide advice to Mrs C’s family about how to access Mrs C’s money for her everyday living costs and bills, after her bank account was frozen

25. The Council advised Mrs B and other family members to contact the Court of Protection for advice on how to access Mrs C’s frozen bank accounts. SW1 arranged shopping vouchers for Mrs C and for a care agency to do the shopping and cleaning when family disagreements arose. SW1 liaised between Mr and Mrs B and CAT to try and speed up the process but there was nothing the Council could do until the appointeeship was granted. Once the Council was an appointee for both the disability benefits and the pension it started to make regular payments for daily living costs and paid the outstanding bills.
26. I have not found fault with its actions here.

misled the family that any money they spent would be refunded once the Council became an appointee

27. The Council advised Mr and Mrs B in March 2022 to keep receipts for the items purchased and they could apply for reimbursement once the appointeeship came through. In August 2022 it advised then that it would refund their costs once enough money had built up in Mrs C’s account, once the bills had been paid. The Council paid the money to Mrs B in January 2023. I accept this was a long wait but I have not found fault with the Council’s actions. It could not access Mrs C’s frozen bank accounts so it had to wait until sufficient money had built up from her pension and disability benefits once the outstanding bills had been paid.

failed to keep the family updated in respect of the progress of the safeguarding investigation

28. The notes show that SW1 updated family members about the proposed action following the strategy meeting in March 2022, held meetings with both groups of family members to explore the situation, held regular review meetings with the family, visited Mrs C regularly and liaised with CAT over the financial situation. It made clear that it could not get involved in the family dispute and it could not resolve the conflicting allegations of financial abuse. It safeguarded Mrs C by ensuring she was looked after and had access to food. I have not found fault with its actions.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation into this complaint as I am unable to find fault causing injustice in the actions of the Council towards Mr B.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman