Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about whether the Council is acting in Mr C’s best interests in its role as appointee for benefits. An Ombudsman investigation would not achieve a worthwhile outcome, and not achieve the outcome the complainant wants; for a family member to be appointee. The Department for Work and Pensions and the Court of Protection are better placed to consider these concerns.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council did not follow procedure when it got itself assigned as appointee for Mr C’s benefits, rather than a family member or friend. Mr C must pay an annual fee to the Council, which would not be payable if a family member or friend was his appointee. Mr B says the Council is not doing a good job, as Mr C often must wait longer than necessary for funds and is wearing damaged clothing which no-one is replacing. Mr B wants a family member appointed as believes they could better meet Mr C’s needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. You can apply for the right to deal with the benefits of someone who cannot manage it themselves. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is responsible for this.
6. The Court of Protection raised concerns about how a family member was managing Mr C’s finances. The DWP removed the family member and appointed the Council. We have no powers to consider the actions of the DWP.
7. The Council has decided it is in Mr C’s best interests for it to remain as his appointee and safeguard his finances, despite the annual cost.
8. The Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome Mr B wants, only the DWP can decide who to appoint. If Mr C wishes to challenge wheher the appointment of the Council is in the best interests of Mr C then he needs to take this to the Court of Protection to decide.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve a worthwhile outcome. We cannot decide who should be the appointee for Mr C’s benefits. The DWP and the Court of Protection are better placed to consider these concerns and achieve the outcomes Mr B wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman