Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about the Council acting in the role of deputy for her brother’s, Mr B’s finances. This is because it would be reasonable for Ms A to ask the court to consider whether the Council is liable for the theft of Mr B’s money and the Information Commissioner’s Office to consider whether she can have access to information she wants.

The complaint

1. Ms A says the Council should accept liability for the theft of her brother’s, Mr B’s, money which was stolen by a carer, when it was acting as his court appointed deputy for finances. Ms A says her father, Mr C, is now Mr B’s deputy and is concerned he has not been given access to his historical financial records so is unable to check whether there are any further discrepancies in the accounting.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I discussed the concerns with Ms A and considered the information and documentation she provided. I sent Ms A a copy of my draft decision for comment.

Back to top

What I found

5. A carer stole money from Mr B. The Council investigated the matter under its safeguarding responsibility and the police took action against the individual concerned.
6. As a good will gesture, the Council gave Mr B the same amount of money taken from him. Ms A says the Council should accept liability for the theft rather than reimbursing the same amount and calling it a goodwill gesture.
7. it would be for the police to take action against the Council if there is enough evidence of it being complicit in the theft, The Ombudsman could not say the Council should accept liability, however, Ms A can ask the court to consider whether the Council as Mr B’s deputy is liable and it would be reasonable for her to do so.
8. Ms A says the Council has refused to provide Mr C, Mr B’s recently court appointed deputy, with historical information about Mr B’s finances so he can reassure himself there are no other irregularities with Mr B’s accounts.
9. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) considers complaints where a person has been refused access to documents or information they believe they are entitled to. Mr C can ask the ICO to decide whether as Mr B’s deputy he should have access to the information he wants and it would be reasonable for him to use this remedy. Information about the ICO can be found on the website below:

https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-information-request

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would be reasonable for Ms A to ask the court to consider whether the Council is liable for the theft of Mr B’s money and the Information Commissioner’s Office to consider whether she can have access to information she wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman