Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to remove or support him with the removal of an appointee to enable him to manage his own finances. We found no fault in the process the Council followed to reach its views around Mr X’s capacity and the need for an appointee of his finances to be in place. It therefore reached decisions it was entitled to make.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complained the Council has failed to remove or support the removal of an appointee for his welfare benefits. He is unhappy about how it has handled his requests and wants to manage his money independently.
2. Mr X said, as a result, he has experienced frustration and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr 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

Mental Capacity Act

8. 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.

Mental capacity assessment

9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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?
12. 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.
13. 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.

Best interest decision making

14. 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.
15. 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.

What happened

16. Mr X receives welfare benefits. Several years ago, the Council found he lacked capacity to manage his own finances. As there is no person with a lasting power of attorney (LPA), a best interest decision was made for an appointee to be put in place to manage his income.
17. The appointee in place to manage Mr X’s finances is a company which has an allocated person looking after his affairs. However, there are restrictions in place regarding Mr X’s contact with the appointee due to issues around how Mr X communicated with the appointee.
18. The Council said Mr X received regular updates about his finances through his allocated social worker, who obtains information from his appointee. This includes information about his debt repayments and his remaining disposable income, which is made available to him.
19. In 2023 the Council completed a review of Mr X’s capacity and need for the appointeeship. It found:
• he continued to lack capacity and the appointee should remain in place. It acknowledged Mr X’s view continued to be that he should manage his own affairs;
• he had debts for which repayment plans had been put in place as he signed up to contracts or spent more than he could afford without proper understanding of budgeting;
• no family were available or able to manage his finances; and
• his circumstances should be reviewed again when, or if, he was able to use and retain information to reach outcomes he could understand.
20. In 2025 Mr X complained to the Council about its ongoing refusal to allow him to manage his own finances and end the appointeeship. He feels he should not have involvement from the Council’s Adult Social Care. He also said it had refused his request and told him he would not get control of his finances for at least two years.
21. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council’s social worker informed Mr X why the appointee remains in place. This included explanations of its best interest decision and the risks to Mr X if his rent or other bills were not paid. It also explained why Mr X did not have direct contact with the appointee. It said it would further review the case when Mr X’s debts had been repaid, but agreed for the social worker to provide breakdowns of his finances so he was more informed.
22. Mr X said he contacted DWP who informed him he can only get control of his benefits payment if the Council provide a letter which confirms this should happen. However, the Council has been clear it will not agree to this. It confirmed the same view in late 2025.
23. Mr X asked the Ombudsman to consider his complaint. He also informed the us he had a complaint about the DWP regarding the same matter which is being considered by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
24. In response to our enquiries the Council confirmed how its Adult Social Care has supported Mr X. It also shared a recent capacity assessment which found Mr X continued to lack capacity to manage his finances, and a best interest decision which confirmed the appointeeship should remain in place.

Analysis and findings

25. I have considered whether there was fault in the process the Council has followed to reach its views about the appointeeship in place for Mr X.
26. I note there was no formal review of Mr X’s capacity between the Council’s review in 2023 until its recent review in May 2026. While the Council ought to have formally reviewed Mr X’s capacity and set out its best interest decision in 2024 or in 2025, I have not found the Council at fault. This is because:
• Mr X has had the support of a social worker throughout this period who has been in regular communication with him. It has been clear to the social worker throughout that Mr X needs support to manage his finances;
• Mr X has disagreed with the Council’s view an appointee is needed to manage his finances and he has continued to make this clear. The Council’s social worker has on several occasions informed Mr X of the reasons the appointee should be in place, and this was also explained in its complaint response in 2025;
• the Council has explained to Mr X why it will not provide a letter to DWP which would enable Mr X to receive his welfare benefits directly, as it has repeatedly found this would not be appropriate;
• the Council has provided Mr X with information about his finances, but it has not always been able to agree to his requests for specific purchases as some were not affordable or appropriate at the time. It did, however, increase his disposable income when his finances allowed for this to happen, including lowering the amount on monies withheld for emergencies.
27. In addition, the Council’s May 2026 review of Mr X’s capacity found he continues to lack capacity to manage his finances. It subsequently made a best interest decision on his behalf for the appointeeship to continue. I have seen no fault in the process it followed to reach its view. I cannot therefore criticise its decision.

Back to top

Decision

28. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault in the process the Council followed to reach its view around Mr X’s capacity and the need for an appointee of his finances to be in place. It therefore reached decisions it was entitled to make.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman