Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not protect his late grandmother from financial abuse and did not involve him in her care and financial decisions as had been agreed. He said that as a result a relative financially abused her and home care fees were not paid. There was some fault by the Council but it did not cause significant injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. I call the complainant Mr X. He complained the Council did not protect his late grandmother from financial abuse and did not involve him in her care and financial decisions as had been agreed. He said that as a result a relative financially abused her and home care fees were not paid.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the complaint and documents provided by Mr X and spoke to him. I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. I sent a draft of this statement to Mr X and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of the relevant law and guidance

5. A council must make necessary enquiries if it has reason to think a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has needs for care and support which mean he or she cannot protect himself or herself. It must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse or risk. (section 42, Care Act 2014)
6. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance (June 2020) underpinning the Care Act (2014) states that: the objectives of an adult safeguarding enquiry is to establish facts; ascertain the adult’s views and wishes; assess the needs of the adult for protection, support and redress and how they might be met; protect from the abuse and neglect, in accordance with the wishes of the adult; make decisions as to what follow-up action should be taken with regard to the person or organisation responsible for the abuse or neglect; enable the adult to achieve resolution and recovery.
7. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 describes the steps a person should take when dealing with someone who may lack capacity to make decisions for themselves. It says 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 themselves.
8. A person must be presumed to have capacity to make a decision unless it is established that they lack capacity.

What happened

9. Mr X’s grandmother, Mrs Y, was elderly but living at home with a package of care. After a series of falls she had a short spell in a care home for reablement in June 2019. There was a multi-disciplinary meeting and Mr X understood from this that Mrs Y wanted him to be involved in decisions about her care and finances.
10. Shortly after this Mr X raised concerns with the Council about the actions of a family member, Mr C, who he believed was trying to financially abuse Mrs Y.
11. Mr X said he did not hear from the Council so raised the matter with his MP but heard nothing more.
12. Over a year later in September 2020 Mrs Y died. Mr X was responsible for winding up her affairs. At this point he found that money had been transferred from one account of Mrs Y’s to another account and that money had been withdrawn from that account. He reported the matter to the police. There was also a liability for home care charges of over £19,000.

Analysis

13. Mr X complained on behalf of Mrs Y but it is not appropriate for me to share information about her with him. This means I cannot tell Mr X the detail of what happened in the Council’s involvement with Mrs Y from June 2019 until her death.
14. There is some information I can provide. The Council did investigate the concern Mr X raised about possible financial abuse. There was no fault in how that investigation was carried out. The Council’s records show an officer phoned Mr X twice in June 2019 to tell him the investigation would not proceed further as there was no evidence of financial abuse. Mr X does not recall being told of the outcome but I have to give weight to the Council’s records. There was no fault here.
15. Mr X involved his MP. The Council acknowledged that correspondence but did not send a substantive reply. That is fault and the Council apologised for that in its complaint response to Mr X. But this is not otherwise significant. If Mr X continued to have concerns about Mrs Y then he could have raised them with the Council.
16. The Council did remain involved with Mrs Y in both the provision of home care and in helping her decide what assistance she wanted with her finances. There is no question that Mrs Y retained capacity to make her own decisions about her finances and the Council’s records show it acted in accordance with her wishes.
17. From October 2019 it is clear Mrs Y was not paying sufficient to cover the charges for the care she was receiving. The Council provided copies of reminders sent to her in February and March 2020 showing outstanding liability of over £8000. The debt continued to increase until her death.
18. Mr X is the executor of Mrs Y’s estate. The Council wrote to him in that capacity asking him to settle the outstanding care charges from Mrs Y’s estate. There is no fault in the Council doing that. The Council said that if it can be shown there are no assets from Mrs Y’s estate then the debt could then be written off. It is, therefore, for Mr X as the executor to provide that evidence to the Council.
19. Mr X also raised as part of his complaint a question about whether Mrs Y should have qualified for continuing healthcare (CHC) funding. Mr X had not raised that before. The Council commented that Mrs Y’s care and support was considered when she was leaving reablement in June 2019 and subsequently but she did not meet the threshold for CHC. There is nothing to suggest there was any fault in how that decision was reached.

Back to top

Final decision

20. There was some fault by the Council but it didn’t cause significant injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman