Summary: A man complained that the Council unreasonably failed to notify his family about his mother’s death, and did not respond adequately to his subsequent enquiries about events surrounding her death. But we will not investigate these matters because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr B, complained that the Council’s Adult Social Care service unreasonably failed to inform his family about the death of his mother (‘Mrs B’) which they only found out about 30 months later. Mr B also complained the Council had not responded properly to his enquiries about its involvement in Mrs B’s care arrangements and events surrounding her death.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if, for example, we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. The law says we cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mr B provided about his complaint and his comments in response to a draft version of this decision. I also considered Mr B’s complaint correspondence with the Council.

Back to top

My assessment

5. I have concluded we do not have reason to investigate Mr B’s complaint. In particular, I do not see that we are likely to find grounds to fault the Council for failing to notify Mr B about Mrs B’s death or failing to intervene in her case at the time. As a result I am not convinced we could say its responses to Mr B’s enquiries about these matters were inadequate.
6. In particular, the Council’s Adult Social Care service said it had no direct involvement in Mrs B’s care around the time she died and did not have any responsibility for the arrangements made following her death. I have seen no evidence to suggest ASC had, or should have had, a closer involvement in Mrs B’s case. Therefore I see no reason to doubt what the Council said in these respects.
7. Mrs B died in hospital. Therefore I understand the hospital would have had the responsibility to make the necessary contacts and initial arrangements following the death. It was also for the executors of Mrs B’s will to ensure her instructions were carried out.
8. In addition, one of Mr B’s concerns was about what happened to Mrs B’s possessions when her tenancy was ended following her death. But we cannot look into this matter as the law prevents us from investigating complaints about the management of social housing.
9. In the circumstances it appears other authorities may be better placed to deal with Mr B’s main concerns.

Back to top

Final Decision

10. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council unreasonably failed to inform his family about his mother’s death, and did not respond properly to his enquiries about its involvement in her case at that time. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify us starting an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman