Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about Council decision making in relation to his mother, Ms Y’s, care. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation or that an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to investigate or confirm his role as Lasting Power of Attorney for his mother, Ms Y, and did not sufficiently consult him in decisions about her care. He says this has caused distress and impacted on his relationship with his mother.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In its complaint responses, the Council acknowledged it could have clarified earlier who held Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) for Ms Y. It apologised for any distress caused by this. It said the Council had confirmed with the Office of the Public Guardian in May 2024 that Mr X held LPA for Ms Y jointly with a relative, Mr Z, and this was now confirmed on its system.
6. It said despite it not being aware Mr X held LPA earlier, Mr X had been fully involved in the care planning for Ms Y and consulted during all best interest decisions. It said as there had been disagreements, the Council had worked to support decision making and ensure Ms Y’s previously expressed wishes and views were also taken into account.
7. We will not investigate this complaint. Despite the lack of clarity over his LPA status, Mr X was consulted and involved in decision making and could have provided the Council with evidence of his LPA at any time. The Council has accepted on its part that it could have sought clarification of whether he held LPA earlier and apologised for this. This is an appropriate remedy for any distress caused.
8. The Council has confirmed Mr X is now recorded as having joint LPA for Ms Y along with Mr Z, and that this will be accounted for in future decision making. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation or that an investigation would lead to a different outcome and so we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation or that an investigation would reach a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman