Summary: The Council was at fault, when acting as Ms Y’s deputy, for not paying her telephone bill leading to her line being cut off. The Council has already remedied the injustice caused. The Council failed to arrange for Ms Y to attend a meeting, for which it has apologised. The Council was at fault for delay in responding to a request Ms Y’s relative, Ms X made, but this did not cause significant injustice. There is no fault in how the Council managed Ms Y’s finances or made best interests decisions on her behalf.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council:
• Has not properly managed her relative, Ms Y’s money when acting as her corporate appointee, causing disappointment and distress for them both.
• Has not properly considered her views and needs as Ms Y’s next of kin.
• Delayed its communication with her, causing her frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)
4. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. Ms X complained to us in September 2025. This is the latest date we would normally include in our investigations. However, I have used my discretion to include events from October and November 2025 as they are ongoing matters that directly relate to Ms X’s complaint and it is not proportionate to expect her to complain about them separately to the Council.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant Law and Guidance

Safeguarding

8. A council must make enquiries if it thinks a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has care and support needs which mean the person cannot protect themselves. An enquiry is the action taken by a council in response to a concern about abuse or neglect. An enquiry could range from a conversation with the person who is the subject of the concern, to a more formal multi-agency arrangement. A council must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse. (section 42, Care Act 2014)

Carer’s assessment

9. Where somebody provides or intends to provide care for another adult and it appears the carer may have any needs for support, the council must carry out a carer’s assessment. A carer’s assessment must seek to find out not only the carer’s needs for support, but also the sustainability of the caring role itself. This includes the practical and emotional support the carer provides to the adult.
10. As part of the carer’s assessment, the council must consider the carer’s potential future needs for support. It must also consider whether the carer is, and will continue to be, able and willing to care for the adult needing care. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014)

Mental capacity and best interests decision making

11. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is the framework for acting and deciding for people who lack the mental capacity to make particular decisions for themselves. The Act (and the Code of Practice 2007) describes the steps a person should take when dealing with someone who may lack capacity to make decisions for themselves. It describes when to assess a person’s capacity to make a decision, how to do this, and how to make a decision on behalf of somebody who cannot do so.
12. 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.

13. 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.
14. 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.
15. If there is a conflict about whether a person has capacity to make a decision, and all efforts to resolve this have failed, the Court of Protection might need to decide if a person has capacity to make the decision.
16. A key principle of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is that any act done for, or any decision made on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be in that person’s best interests. The decision-maker also has to consider if there is a less restrictive choice available that can achieve the same outcome. Section 4 of the Act provides a checklist of steps decision-makers must follow to determine what is in a person’s best interests.
17. If there is a conflict about what is in a person’s best interests, and all efforts to resolve the dispute have failed, the Court of Protection might need to decide what is in the person’s best interests.

Court of Protection

18. The Court of Protection deals with decision-making for adults who may lack capacity to make specific decisions for themselves.
19. The Court of Protection may need to become involved in difficult cases or cases where there is disagreement which cannot be resolved in any other way. The Court of Protection:

• decides whether a person has capacity to make a particular decision for themselves;
• makes declarations, decisions or orders on financial or welfare matters affecting people who lack capacity to make such decisions;
• appoints deputies to make decisions for people lacking capacity to make those decisions;
• decides whether a Lasting Power of Attorney is valid; and
• removes deputies or attorneys who fail to carry out their duties.

Lasting Power of Attorney

20. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 introduced the “Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA)”. An LPA is a legal document, which allows a person (‘the donor’) to choose one or more persons to make decisions for them, when they become unable to do so themselves. The 'attorney' is the person chosen to make a decision on the donor’s behalf. Any decision has to be in the donor’s best interests.
21. An attorney or donor must register an LPA with the Office of the Public Guardian before the attorney can make decisions for the donor.

Court-appointed Deputies

22. If there is a need for continuing decision-making powers and there is no relevant LPA, the Court of Protection may appoint a deputy to make decisions for a person. It will also say what decisions the deputy has the authority to make on the person’s behalf.

The Council’s role as corporate deputy or appointee

23. The Council can act as deputy or appointee for someone who lacks mental capacity to make their own decisions.
24. The Court of Protection can appoint the Council as deputy to manage a person’s financial affairs.
25. The Department of Work and Pensions can appoint the Council to act as someone’s appointee if their only income is from benefits and they have no property or savings.

The Council’s complaints procedure

26. The Council has a complaints policy for adult social care complaints. The policy has three stages, Stage One, Internal Review and Further Review.

Background

27. Ms Y has a mental health condition and is at risk of exploitation. She lives on her own and has support from her relative, Ms X and a support plan from the Council which includes care support at home.
28. The Council has acted as her corporate appointee since 2019. Its Client Affairs Team pay bills on Ms Y’s behalf, provide money for her shopping and makes other payments with authority from the Social Care Team, known as CAST.

What happened

29. The following is a summary of key events relevant to this investigation.
30. In November 2024 Ms X contacted the Council to say it had not paid Ms Y’s telephone bill and her landline was not working.
31. In December 2024 and January 2025 Ms X again contacted the Council about the telephone line and unpaid bill.
32. In January 2025 the Council proposed a new plan to support Ms Y with the management of her money. This included the Council giving money to Ms Y’s carers for clothes and getting Ms Y’s views about requests for money.
33. The Council paid Ms Y’s telephone bill in February 2025 and her landline was reinstated.
34. In February 2025 Ms X requested money on behalf of Ms Y for birthday celebrations. The Council said it would not give Ms Y large amounts of money but would give carers money and the carers would support Ms Y with how she wanted to spend it. This was to ensure receipts could be provided.
35. In February 2025 Ms X made a complaint to the Council. She said it had not paid Ms Y’s telephone bill leading to her landline being disconnected. She said the Council had not acknowledged she was a carer. She said Ms Y wanted her to ask the Council for money and within agreed boundaries, Ms Y should be able to choose how to spend her money, including going shopping with Ms X.
36. In March 2025 the Council responded to the complaint. It said:
• It would directly discuss any requests for money with Ms Y to gain her views.
• The Client Affairs Team can only process payments authorised by CAST.
• It paid Ms Y’s telephone bill in February 2025 and had been told her telephone line would be reconnected.
37. In March 2025 Ms X escalated her complaint. She said the Council had not addressed its delay paying the telephone bill and she was concerned about how it would deal with future emergencies. She also said the Council had not answered her request for birthday money or arrangements for shopping with Ms Y.
38. In March 2025 Ms Y requested money to buy a new coat. The Council reminded Ms Y she had recently bought a new coat. Case notes record Ms Y became distressed during the discussion and said she wanted to have the money.
39. Later in March 2025 the Council had a meeting with Ms X to discuss Ms Y’s financial arrangements. Miscommunication meant Ms Y was not present at the meeting. At the meeting the Council said:
• The Client Affairs Team and CAST would meet to confirm Ms Y’s financial arrangements.
• It was concerned Ms X had requested money that was for her rather than for Ms Y.
• When it made a best interests decision this would not necessarily be what Ms X or Ms Y said they wanted.
• Ms X could contact the Carers service for support and advice.
40. In April 2025 the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint. It apologised for not paying the telephone bill but said it had dealt with other contact from Ms X promptly. It said a Council officer had recently tried to speak to Ms X about money requests but she had refused. It would look at how to make money more available for shopping. It acknowledged it had failed to arrange for Ms Y to attend the March 2025 meeting. The Council said it would continue to make best interests decisions about requests for money.
41. In May 2025 the Council received a safeguarding concern about aspects of Ms Y’s support and the Council began a safeguarding enquiry.
42. A Social Worker visited Ms Y three times during June 2025 as part of the enquiry. At the first visit Ms Y was unclear about her financial arrangements.
43. At the second visit the Social Worker completed a mental capacity assessment regarding Ms Y’s care arrangements. It concluded she was able to make some small decisions but lacked the capacity to make decisions about her overall care and support.
44. At the second visit Ms Y said she liked to spend modestly and was happy to give Ms X small amounts of money, setting a limit of £50.
45. During the third visit Ms Y repeated that she was happy with a spending limit of £50 for gifts.
46. The Council did not complete a formal mental capacity assessment about Ms Y’s financial arrangements.
47. In June 2025 Ms X made a request to escalate her complaint. She raised concerns nothing had changed, the Council had delayed payments, took too long to make decisions and the arrangements were not working well.
48. The Council responded in July 2025. It said apart from taking too long to pay the telephone bill it had made other decisions promptly, it had sped up how it paid bills and had referred Ms X for a carers assessment.
49. In July 2025 the Council held a meeting with Ms X as part of the safeguarding enquiry. It explained its arrangements and decision making. Ms X said she thought the arrangements made Ms Y feel she had no entitlement to her money.
50. In October 2025 the enquiry concluded the existing safeguards ensured Ms Y was protected from financial abuse. It said Ms Y wanted to give Ms X small amounts of money and to spend modestly. It decided giving her small amounts was appropriate although there was some risk she might give her money away.
51. In November 2025 Ms X made a request on behalf of Ms Y for her account balance. The Council took over two months to provide it.
52. The Council completed an annual review in November 2025. At the review the Council said Ms Y appeared to be managing her finances and so increased her daily allowance. It agreed to look at how Ms Y could give Ms X cash gifts. It reviewed utility payments and how Ms Y and Ms X could access money to spend time together.
53. In response to our enquiries in April 2026 the Council said it had not carried out a formal best interests meeting about Ms Y’s appointeeship in the last two years. It said decisions were made by CAST with the agreement of a manager.

Findings

54. The Council was at fault when it delayed paying Ms Y’s telephone bill leading to her line being disconnected. The Council has apologised and paid the bill. It has changed how it processes Ms Y’s bills to minimise the chances of this happening again. This is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused to Ms Y by the Council’s fault.
55. The Council told Ms X it would respond to future financial requests within five working days. However, when Ms X requested an account balance on behalf of Ms Y in November 2025 it took over two months to reply. This is fault but I do not consider this caused a significant injustice to Ms Y or Ms X.
56. The Council has been a corporate appointee for Ms Y since 2019. It has not completed a new formal mental capacity assessment and best interests decision regarding Ms Y’s finances for over two years. Although this is not fault, the Council may want to consider carrying out a new assessment to assure itself and others about her mental capacity.
57. The Council has appropriately consulted with Ms Y when making decisions on her behalf. It has also contacted Ms X about financial decisions and spoken with Ms Y’s paid carers.
58. The Council made best interests decisions about Ms Y’s finances throughout 2025. Other than the late payment of the telephone bill there was no fault in how the Council managed Ms Y’s finances.
59. The Council was at fault when it did not arrange for Ms Y to be present at a meeting in March 2025. The Council apologised which is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to her.
60. With the current financial arrangements Ms Y has accrued some savings. The Council can therefore decide to apply to the Court of Protection if it considers it is managing Ms Y’s wider financial affairs.
61. When the Council completed the safeguarding enquiry it found Ms Y was at risk of financial abuse and decided the existing safeguards should remain in place. I have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council completed the safeguarding enquiry.
62. As part of the complaint response the Council said it would arrange for Ms X to have a carers assessment. Ms X advised she had contact from someone regarding carer support but was unsure if she had been offered an assessment. The Council could check Ms X has been offered a carers assessment and signposted to available support.
63. The Council has included Ms X in best interests decisions, in the safeguarding enquiry and in the annual review. The Council has properly considered her views.
64. If Ms X feels the Council is not acting in Ms Y’s best interests she could apply to the Court of Protection to become a Court appointed deputy for Ms Y.

Back to top

Decision

65. I find fault causing injustice which the Council has already remedied.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman