Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the Council undertaking a safeguarding investigation, or its decision to consider applying to the Court of Protection for deputyship for his mother’s, Mrs B’s, finances. This is because there is no evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council warranting investigation by the Ombudsman. Mr A can ask the Court of Protection to consider his application for deputyship for Mrs B’s finances.

The complaint

1. Mr A says the Council are wrongly undertaking safeguarding investigations about him and should not apply to the Court of Protection for deputyship of his mother’s, Mrs B’s, finances as he is her next of kin.

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’. 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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information and documentation Mr A and the Council provided. I sent Mr A a copy of my draft decision for comment.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr A complained to the Council in July 2018 about his mother’s care package and charges for the care. The Council responded in August 2018 and explained it had charged Mrs B the full cost of her care package because it has received information from Mr A and his son confirming Mrs B had finances over the threshold of £23250. When it was made aware this was not the case, it undertook an investigation into Mrs B’s finances and following the outcome of the investigation took the decision to backdate Mrs B’s financial assessment to August 2016, when it calculated her finances fell below the threshold for full cost. It said it had received two payments during 2016 totalling £1648.32 which left an outstanding balance of £6894.01.
6. The Ombudsman could not say his is fault. The Council has confirmed there are no current or outstanding safeguarding matters, so there are no safeguarding matters for the Ombudsman to investigate.
7. The Council explained when Mr A applied for Lasting Power of Attorney in 2016, Mrs B lacked capacity so could not agree to this. It said once the arrears on Mrs B’s account have been paid, Mr A will have the option of applying to the Court of Protection for deputyship of his mother’s finances. If he does not wish to do this, the Council will apply to the court to ensure Mrs B’s finances are managed appropriately and do not fall into debt again.
8. The Ombudsman could not say this is fault and cannot tell the Council it should not apply for deputyship of Mrs B’s finances. If Mr A does not agree with the Council’s application, he can ask the court to consider his representations.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council warranting investigation by the Ombudsman. Mr A can ask the Court of Protection to consider his application for deputyship for Mrs B’s finances.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman