Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms B’s late complaint about a safeguarding investigation the Council undertook in 2017. This is because it is unlikely he would find evidence of fault causing a significant enough injustice to warrant disapplying the law to investigate this late complaint now. It is the role of the police to consider allegations about missing money.

The complaint

1. Ms B says her late mother’s partner did not properly care for her. Ms B says she raised her concerns with the Council in 2017. Ms B says if the Council had properly investigated her concerns her mother, Mrs C, would not have suffered ongoing abuse resulting in her being admitted to hospital in February 2019 suffering from malnutrition, grade three pressure sores and weight loss. Ms B says the Council bullied, belittled and humiliated her and took 63 days to consider her complaints. In addition, Ms B says she has recently found evidence that money was taken from Mrs C’s bank account.

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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information and documentation Ms B provided. I sent Ms B a copy of my draft decision and considered her comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms B says Mrs C would not have suffered ongoing abuse resulting in her being admitted to hospital in February 2019 if the Council had properly considered her concerns about her partner and carer when she raised them in 2017.
6. The Council visited Mrs C in 2017 when Ms B raised her concerns. Mrs B was unhappy with the Council’s safeguarding investigation and complained in July 2018. The Council responded in August 2018. It said Mrs C had mental capacity to decide what care she wanted. She said she did not want external carers or respite care and was happy with the care and support provided to her by her partner. It says it discussed Mrs C’s nutritional needs with her and her partner and Mrs C’s partner said he was giving her a thickening liquid in every drink. Ms B disputes this and says she has evidence that Mrs C was not given her drinks as she should have been as recommended by the Speech and Language Therapy Team (SALT) and says she was malnourished and dehydrated when she was admitted to hospital.
7. The Council said Mrs C expressed distress at the number of complaints Ms B raised and felt they were unnecessary. The Council passed on Ms B’s concerns about finances to the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) who satisfied itself that Mrs C had capacity and wanted her partner to manage her finances for her.
8. The law says complaints to the Ombudsman should be made:

(a) in writing, and

(b) before the end of the permitted period.

The permitted period means the period of 12 months beginning with—

(a) the day on which the person affected first had notice of the matter, or

(b) if the person affected has died without having notice of the matter—

(i) the day on which the personal representatives of the person affected first had notice of the matter, or

(ii) if earlier, the day on which the complainant first had notice of the matter.

(3) A Local Commissioner may disapply either or both of the requirements in subsection (1)(a) and (b) in relation to a particular complaint if there are good reasons.

9. Ms B says she has been unwell and unable to complain sooner. The Council investigated Ms B’s concerns in 2017 and responded to her complaint in 2018. It advised her to come to the Ombudsman if she was unhappy with the outcome. Ms B says until Mrs C was admitted to hospital she was not aware she was still being abused. The Ombudsman could not make the causal link between the safeguarding investigation of 2017 and Mrs C’s death in 2019.
10. The Council explained Mrs C had capacity to make decisions for herself about care she wanted. Mrs C had capacity and the OPG was satisfied she wanted her partner to manage her finances. There are no good reasons for the Ombudsman to exercise his discretion and investigate this matter now.
11. Ms B says she has recently found discrepancies in Mrs C’s finances and says there is money missing from her accounts. Ms B’s allegations about missing money are criminal matters. Ms B says she has asked the police to consider her concerns about the discrepancies in Mrs C’s bank account, but it has refused. The Office of the Public Guardian was satisfied Mrs C wanted her partner to manage her finances on her behalf while she was alive. Mrs C is now deceased, any allegations of theft are for the police to consider not the Ombudsman.
12. Ms B says she felt bullied and belittled by the Council. The Council’s 2018 response apologised to Ms B for any confusion or misunderstanding about what was said. The Ombudsman could not make a finding on how a person is made to feel when there is no tangible administrative fault and is satisfied an apology remedies any injustice caused to Ms B.
13. Ms B is unhappy with the length of time it took the Council to investigate her safeguarding concerns. Where he is not investigating the substantive matter, the Ombudsman will not normally investigate the way the Council handled a complaint. That is the case here.

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely he would find evidence of fault causing a significant enough injustice to warrant disapplying the law to investigate this late complaint now. It is the police’s role to consider allegations about missing money.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman