Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council failed to take sufficient steps to identify her as her mother’s next of kin and failed to take care of her mother’s possessions when it cleared her house. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the actions taken by the Council to identify her as her mother, Mrs M’s, next of kin, so she could be involved in decisions about Mrs M’s care. She also complains the Council destroyed sentimental items belonging to Mrs M when it cleared her house.
2. Miss X says that as a result she was denied the opportunity to spend time with Mrs M at the end of her life and she has been caused distress by the loss of items which have sentimental value to her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the Miss X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Some years ago, Mrs M was admitted to hospital. Following several assessments, she was deemed to lack capacity to make decisions about her care and finances.
7. Documentation held by the Council stated Mrs M was estranged from Miss X. Local NHS records stated Mrs M had no next of kin. As a result, the Council appointed an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) to represent Mrs M. Because both the NHS and Council records recorded there was no family involvement with Mrs M, the Council took no steps to search for any family members.
8. The decision was made for Mrs M to move to a care home. The Council applied to the Court of Protection to become Mrs M’s deputy for health and finance decisions which was granted. The Council then sold Mrs M’s house. Prior to doing so, a Council team visited the property and removed all financial documents, clothing and items which may have a sentimental value. The Council said it also searched for records of next of kin but found none.
9. Mrs M later died and the Council employed a genealogical company to search for next of kin. The company identified Miss X shortly before the funeral. Miss X subsequently complained about the matters in paragraph 1.
10. We will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely any investigation would find evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. The Council’s duty of care was to Mrs M and not Miss X. This meant it had to ensure it took Mrs M’s best interests into account when making decisions about her care, even if that might result in distress to Miss X. Mrs M had previously stated she was estranged from Miss X and it was appropriate that the IMCA took this into account when representing her.
11. The Council had no duty to proactively search for next of kin at that time. However, on Mrs M’s death, the Council’s duties changed and it took appropriate steps to find Mrs M’s next of kin.
12. The Council states it removed all items of value from Mrs M’s home. Miss X says some are missing. Even on the balance of probabilities I cannot say what happened. Therefore, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman