Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, brought by Mrs Y, about the Council’s decision not to issue him with a pre-payment card to access his funds. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating. The Court of Protection or the Office of the Public Guardian are also the bodies better placed to consider the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y is Mr X’s advocate from a disability advocacy service. She complains on behalf of Mr X that the Council has unfairly refused to issue him with a pre‑payment card to access his funds.
2. Mrs Y says Mr X is unable to buy some goods and services, such as online holidays, because payment by card is required. She says Mr X is restricted to picking up money released to him to pay for things, which is difficult due to his age and health. She says Mr X has to keep cash in his home to reimburse support workers who have bought things for him on their cards. Mrs Y considers the situation is not in his best interests. She wants the Council to give Mr X a pre‑payment card, for which he is willing to pay the additional costs if required.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mrs Y and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We cannot criticise a council decision made without fault solely because someone disagrees with it. We may only go behind a council decision where there is evidence of fault in the decision-making process and but for that fault a different outcome would have been reached. So we consider the process councils follow to make their decision.
7. The Council is Mr X’s deputy for his finances. The Court of Protection (CoP) has determined Mr X requires this ongoing support and intervention into his finances and that this is in his best interests.
8. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council’s officers conducted a report. They reviewed the relevant documents and case notes relating to Mr X’s finances, including those from the CoP process. They considered the legislation, such as the Care Act 2014, and the duties it places on its officers in relation to Mr X’s finances. Officers reviewed the current procedures in place to allow Mr X access to his money and how his expenditure is assessed. They also interviewed people involved with Mr X’s accommodation and other support services, including Mrs Y. Officers stated that while the Council would like to give Mr X access to the funds he needs for purchases, as his financial deputy it had to weigh the ease of that access against its legal deputyship duty to make sure his spending was appropriate. They noted purchases using a card would still need to be approved by the Council because of its deputyship role. Officers took the view, based on previous assessments of Mr X’s capacity to deal with his finances, and the CoP’s decision on that issue, that he may not be able to independently use and manage a pre-payment card so declined to issue him with one.
9. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here to warrant us investigating. Officers considered relevant information in reaching the decision, on which they were entitled to make. I realise Mr X and Mrs Y disagree with that decision, but it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
10. If Mrs Y disputes the restrictions on Mr X caused by the current terms or existence of the court-ordered deputyship, this would be a matter they would need to take this to the CoP. Alternatively, if they wish to challenge the Council’s implementation of its deputyship duties on the issue complained of, they might raise this with the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG). The CoP or the OPG are bodies better placed to consider these matters. We have no remit to challenge or change the court deputyship order, nor can we be involved with any actions of the OPG.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation; and
• there are bodies better placed to consider the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman