Summary: Miss X complained the Council continues to manage her money even though she has now paid off her debts. We have ended our investigation into this complaint because the Council has explained why it remains her appointee, there is no evidence of fault in its actions or of significant injustice to Miss X, and we cannot achieve the outcome she wants.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council continues to manage her money even though her debts have now been paid off.
2. She says she was misled into agreeing to the appointeeship.
3. She wants to know why the arrangement has continued for so long and for control of her money to be returned to her.

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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or
• 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 evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Mental capacity assessment

7. A person aged 16 or over must be presumed to have capacity to make a decision unless it is established they lack capacity. A person should not be treated as unable to make a decision:

• because they make an unwise decision;
• based simply on: their age; their appearance; assumptions about their condition, or any aspect of their behaviour; or
• before all practicable steps to help the person to do so have been taken without success.

8. The council must assess someone’s ability to make a decision when that person’s capacity is in doubt. How it assesses capacity may vary depending on the complexity of the decision.
9. An assessment of someone’s capacity is specific to the decision to be made at a particular time. When assessing somebody’s capacity, the assessor needs to find out the following:

• Does the person have a general understanding of what decision they need to make and why they need to make it?
• Does the person have a general understanding of the likely effects of making, or not making, this decision?
• Is the person able to understand, retain, use, and weigh up the information relevant to this decision?
• Can the person communicate their decision?

10. The person assessing an individual’s capacity will usually be the person directly concerned with the individual when the decision needs to be made. More complex decisions are likely to need more formal assessments.

What happened

11. In 2022, Miss X was in significant debt and agreed to let the Council become her appointee. Her benefits were paid directly to the Council’s finance team, which used the funds to pay bills, manage her debts, and set aside a contingency fund. Any remaining balance was provided to Miss X for personal spending. Over time the Council were able to reduce her debt.
12. In 2024, the Council reviewed Miss X’s situation and completed a mental capacity assessment. The assessment concluded Miss X did not have capacity to manage her own money at that time.
13. Miss X complained to the Council. She said she was told the Council would only manage her money until her debts were cleared, but this had not happened.
14. In response, the Council explained that Miss X remained under appointeeship because the capacity assessment found she could not yet manage her money independently. The Council said it regularly reviews such arrangements and was supporting Miss X to build her financial management skills. It had developed a plan to help her gradually take on more responsibility as she gains skills and experience.
15. In June, Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.
16. The Council has since completed a further mental capacity assessment which found she does not have capacity to manage her own money currently.

My findings

17. I have decided to end my investigation because the mental capacity assessments found Miss X does not have the capacity to manage her money. The Council has explained why it continues to hold the appointeeship and is taking reasonable steps to support her towards greater independence.
18. There is no evidence the Council is misusing Miss X’s funds or unreasonably preventing her access to money for personal needs.
19. I am therefore not persuaded Miss X has experienced a significant personal injustice, nor could further investigation achieve the outcome she seeks.
20. For these reasons, I do not consider further investigation by the Ombudsman to be warranted.

Back to top

Decision

21. I have ended my investigation into this complaint. No further investigation is needed because there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions, any injustice caused is not significant enough to justify our involvement, and I am unable to achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman