Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council replacing him as the appointee for his sister and the Social Worker’s poor communication. This is because the complaint is late, there are other bodies better placed to consider the complaint, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council replaced him as the appointee for his sister, Miss Y, who lacks mental capacity. He also complained his sister’s Social Worker poorly communicates with him. He said the matter has caused him distress. He wants to resume the role of his sister’s appointee and he wants the Council to allocate his sister a new social worker.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. 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 another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X said he was the appointee for his sister, Miss Y’s, benefits. Mr X said in 2022, he was removed as the appointee without reason. Since then, the Council has been Miss Y’s appointee for her benefits. Mr X was unhappy about this decision and complained to the Council. He also said Miss Y’s Social Worker had failed to properly communicate with him.
7. The Council responded to Mr X and said:
• Miss Y was content with the current arrangements. It also had a meeting with Miss Y and a witness at Mr X’s request. During the meeting, Miss Y again expressed she was happy with the arrangements. Miss Y expressed what information she did and did not want the Council to share with her family. The Council said it had to respect her wishes and would share what Miss Y permitted it to share with the family; and
• it had no concerns with Miss Y’s Social Worker. It said Miss Y and the Social Worker had a good and productive relationship which had been observed by management.
8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council removing him as Miss Y’s appointee. This is because the Council took this action in 2022 which is more than 12 months ago and so the complaint is late. There are no good reasons why Mr X did not complain to us sooner.
9. In any case, the Court of Protection and the Department for Work and Pensions are better bodies placed to consider Mr X’s complaint about the removal of him being the appointee. We have no powers to consider who should be someone’s appointee. Therefore, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.
10. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s Social Worker. The Council explained to Mr X it cannot share everything about his sister with him and the family as she had requested this. The Council said it must respect her wishes. This was appropriate and so there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is late, there are other bodies better placed to consider his complaint, we cannot achieve the outcome he wants and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman