Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s mismanagement of her late father Mr Y’s finances and benefit claims. An investigation by us could not achieve a worthwhile outcome, nor provide the outcomes Miss X seeks from her complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr Y is Miss X’s late father. The Council held appointeeship for his finances until Miss X took them over. She complains the Council failed to apply to transfer Mr Y’s claim from Disability Living Allowance (DLA) to the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) benefit.
2. Miss X says Mr Y lost out on the benefit, with which he could have had a better life. She says the matter has had an emotional toll on her and she feels guilty, particularly after Mr Y’s death.
3. Miss X wants justice for Mr Y and to know how many others are being affected by the Council being their financial appointee.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Miss X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X took over the financial appointeeship role when she gained Power of Attorney for Mr Y. The Council accepts that while it held that role it delayed and did not secure the PIP benefit for Mr Y before he died.
7. We recognise Miss X would have been caused upset by the issues she had with the Council’s management of Mr Y’s finances. But the injustice caused by the Council’s fault in the way it managed his money and benefits was primarily to Mr Y. We cannot provide a remedy to Mr Y as he has died, so there would be no worthwhile outcome an investigation by us would now achieve for him. We will not investigate where an investigation cannot provide a remedy because the person who would have been affected has died. We understand Miss X’s own injustice is feelings of upset and guilt from not becoming involved with Mr Y’s finances earlier. But an investigation of the Council could not remove those feelings, so would not achieve a worthwhile outcome for her.
8. We further note the outcome Miss X wants from her complaint is justice for Mr Y. But an investigation could not now provide justice to him since his death. That we cannot achieve this outcome Miss X seeks is a further reason why we will not investigate. We recognise another outcome Miss X wants from her complaint is to know about others being affected by the Council’s financial appointeeships. While we understand she may have concerns about people in similar circumstances to Mr Y’s, any impact on them would not be an injustice to her. Miss X is also no longer involved with the Council in relation to that service so investigation to pursue that issue would no longer provide a worthwhile outcome for her, so we will not do so.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because:
• an investigation by us could not achieve a worthwhile outcome; and
• an investigation could not provide the outcomes Miss X seeks from her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman