Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to remove Mrs X as their son’s financial appointee. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X and Mrs X complain about the Council’s decision to remove Mrs X as their son’s financial appointee. They say the Council did not have their son’s consent to do this.

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X was her son, Mr Z’s, Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) financial appointee. This meant she managed her son’s finances and benefits.
7. In 2023, the Council raised concerns that Mr Z was overclaiming benefits as he was claiming as a single person, rather than as a couple. This was despite Mr Z living with his long-term partner since November 2022. This put Mr Z at risk of incurring a debt.
8. The Council raised this with Mrs X and advised her to report the change of circumstances to the DWP and ensure a joint benefit claim was made instead. However, Mrs X refused to do this as she disagreed with the relationship. This raised concerns that Mrs X was not acting in her son’s best interest and about her suitability to act as Mr Z’s financial appointee.
9. The Council completed a mental capacity assessment to determine if Mr Z had capacity to manage his own finances. The capacity assessment found Mr Z lacked capacity. The Council then completed a best interest decision to determine who should manage Mr Z’s finances. Mr Z and his parent’s wishes were considered, which was for Mrs X to continue as his financial appointee.
10. The best interest decision noted the risks and concerns around Mrs X continuing as Mr Z’s financial appointee, including her refusal to report Mr Z’s change of circumstances and her previous history of withholding funds from Mr Z. The best interest decision was made for the Council to take over his appointeeship to avoid Mr X incurring any debt.
11. The Council further reviewed its best interest decision in October 2024 when Mr Z expressed a wish for his mother to return as his appointee. The best interest decision record shows the Council considered both Mr Z’s wishes and Mr and Mrs X’s views. A clear rationale has been recorded in terms of the concerns that handing Mrs X the appointeeship back would negatively impact Mr Z and put his finances at risk. The Council also acknowledged the relationship with Mr Z’s appointee had broken down and so agreed for a new appointee from the Council to be named.
12. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. It is clear the Council had concerns about Mrs X’s suitability as her son’s financial appointee and took the appropriate steps to consider them.
13. While there is evidence to support Mr Z’s wish for his mother to be reappointed as his financial appointee, the Council had found Mr Z to lack capacity to manage his financial affairs. The Council therefore appropriately completed a best interest decision before it made the decision to remove Mrs X’s as financial appointee/refusal to reinstate her. Both Mr and Mrs X were involved in the best interest decision process and were given the opportunity to share their views.
14. Finally, I am satisfied the Council had clearly explained the concerns around the risk to both Mr and Mrs X. This gave Mrs X an opportunity to reflect on the situation and to change her actions/decisions. However, Mrs X clearly indicated to the Council she would not act as advised, despite the risks it posed to Mr Z.
15. As the Council has followed the correct process in making its decision, it is allowed to make its decision.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman