Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s Adult Social Care and Environmental Health teams. This is because the complaint is late, and it is unlikely we would find fault.

The complaint

1. Ms Q complained on behalf of her uncle, Mr D, about the actions of Leicester City Council’s Adult Social Care Team and its Environmental Health Team. She said

• the Adult Social Care Team placed Mr D in a new care facility that hadn’t been properly set up. Among other things, he had money removed from his bank account to pay for things he did not have to pay for; and
• the Council’s Environmental Health Team wrongly served an abatement notice on Mr D and then removed building materials from his garden at great cost to him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Ms Q and her father provided. I discussed the complaint with Ms Q. I considered the information the Council provided. I considered Ms Q’s response to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. Mr D has mental health problems. His brother, Mr M, is Ms Q’s father.
7. Mr M held Power of Attorney for Mr D. In 2017 the Court of Protection removed Mr M as Power of Attorney and replaced him with a court-appointed deputy.
8. In 2019 the Court of Protection gave Ms Q deputyship for Mr D.

What happened

9. Mr D was hospitalised in 2016. When he left hospital later that year, he moved into a new care facility. Ms Q said the Council failed to ensure the care facility was properly set up. She said

• the care facility did not provide proper invoices or correct amounts for utility and household bills;
• the care facility did not abide by the terms of Mr D’s tenancy agreement;
• the care facility transferred £300 from Mr D’s personal account into the household account;
• the Council did not follow up on the Mr M’s or Ms Q’s concerns or resolve any of the issues raised with it;
• the Council did not give relevant information about Mr D to the court-appointed deputy, resulting in avoidable charges being made for the deputy’s work.

10. In 2017 Mr M complained to the Council about the care facility on behalf of Mr D. The Council responded to the complaint in September 2017 and advised him he could complain to us.
11. Also in 2017 the Council served an abatement notice on Mr D for materials stored in his garden. The Council believed they were causing a statutory nuisance. The court-appointed deputy authorised the Council to remove the materials, at a cost of several hundred pounds to Mr D. Mr M complained to the Council about this, saying they were building materials. It responded in 2018.
12. Mr D was readmitted to hospital in May 2018. Mr M complained to us on his behalf in October 2018. We did not pursue it at the time because, by then, Mr M did not have the authority to act on behalf of Mr D. Ms Q is now pursuing the complaint on behalf of Mr D.
13. Ms Q explained that she started to liaise with the Council in the autumn of 2017. She said there was also ongoing contact with the court-appointed deputy in the Spring of 2018. And Mr D’s wellbeing was her main concern before he went into hospital in May 2018. Ms Q also stressed that the Council did not resolve any of the issues she and Mr M raised with it.

Analysis

14. We will not investigate this complaint.
15. The events complained of happened between 2016 and 2017 but we did not receive a complaint until October 2018. So the complaint is late. Ms Q explained why it had taken so long to bring the complaint to us. I understand she and Mr M would have been concerned about Mr D’s welfare, and Ms Q was in contact with the Council and the court-appointed deputy. However, in September 2017, the Council advised Mr M to bring his complaint to us. As I understand it, that was before Ms Q had contact with the Council or the deputy, and was several months before Mr D was hospitalised. So, in my view, it would have been reasonable for Mr M or Ms Q to bring the complaint to us sooner, particularly as they did not think the Council had dealt with concerns about the care provider. So there are no good reasons for us to consider the complaint now.
16. Ms Q is also concerned that the Council removed materials from Mr D’s garden at a cost of several hundred pounds. This complaint is also late. In any event, the court-appointed deputy authorised removal of the materials. So we are unlikely to find fault with the Council for doing so.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate this complaint for the reasons given in the Analysis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman