Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about safeguarding against financial abuse. The Council’s actions have not caused the claimed injustice, so the complaint does not warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr E says the Council failed to safeguard Ms F from financial abuse and failed to support her to recover and keep access to her own funds when she had capacity to manage her own finances. Mr E says because the Council failed to support Ms F to recover large sums of money that were taken from her, she now has less choice over meeting her care needs and has less money available to pay for her care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr E is Ms F’s court appointed deputy to manage her property and financial affairs.
6. Mr E complains about a time before he was appointed as deputy, when Ms F had capacity and was managing her own finances. Large sums of money were taken from Ms F’s bank account and put into accounts in her children’s names. Mr E says this was without Ms F’s knowledge or consent. Mr E also says one of Ms F’s children, Mr G, had power of attorney for Ms F’s finances then. Mr G was refusing to give Ms F money for things she wished to buy. The Council knew about this, and Mr E says it should have triggered a safeguarding investigation into potential financial abuse of Ms F.
7. This might be true, but it is unlikely a safeguarding investigation at the time would have changed the outcome or meant the situation now would be any different. The children had already taken Ms F’s money by that time.
8. At Ms F’s request, the Council arranged a meeting with Ms F, her solicitor, her children and council officers, to openly discuss Ms F’s finances. Ms F decided to remove Mr G as her power of attorney. The Council advised her to seek independent legal advice and guidance from a solicitor.
9. Had the Council completed a safeguarding investigation and found Mr G was financially abusing Ms F, it is unlikely the result would have been different. It appears Ms F had capacity at the time to make her own decisions on relevant matters, and it was up to her to decide what action, if any, to take about her children taking her money. Ms F had support from a solicitor to advise of her options and removed Mr G as her power of attorney.
10. The Council was not managing Ms F’s finances and had no duty to recover her money. The Council properly directed Ms F to seek financial and legal advice. The Council also told the police about a potential crime about the theft of Ms F’s money by her children. The police advised this was a civil matter for the family to resolve.
11. That remains the situation today. It is not the Council’s actions which have caused Ms F’s injustice, it is the actions of her children. The Council properly directed Ms F to relevant support and cannot be held accountable if she chose not to take action at the time. Ms F had capacity around her finances, and it was her decision to make. That position is not affected by Ms F losing mental capacity since these events.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr E’s complaint because any fault by the Council has not caused the claimed injustice. It is unlikely that investigation by the Ombudsman would lead to a different outcome for Ms F.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman