Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about safeguarding action taken by the Council in relation to his friend, Mr Y’s finances. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about safeguarding action taken by the Council in relation to his friend, Mr Y’s, finances.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. A council must make enquiries if it thinks a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has care and support needs which mean the person cannot protect themselves. An enquiry could range from a conversation with the person who is the subject of the concern, to a more formal multi-agency arrangement. A council must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse. (section 42, Care Act 2014)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In 2022, Mr X and his wife were helping their friend, Mr Y, to manage his finances in an informal arrangement. In October, the Council completed a mental capacity assessment with Mr Y. The assessment concluded Mr Y did not have capacity to manage his own finances.
7. As part of its safeguarding duty to Mr Y, the Council reviewed the arrangements for managing Mr Y’s finances. As Mr Y received benefits, the Council informed the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) that it was completing a financial review.
8. The DWP decided to temporarily pause Mr Y’s benefits.
9. Mr X complained to the Council that its actions had led to Mr Y’s benefits being disrupted. He said a formal arrangement for managing Mr Y’s finances was not necessary.
10. We should not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. The Council has a duty to safeguard Mr Y and as part of meeting this duty, is entitled to make enquiries and act as it considers appropriate to reduce any risk to Mr Y of financial abuse. It has appropriately explained its decision making in its complaint response to Mr X.
11. The decision to temporarily pause Mr Y’s benefits was made by the DWP and not the Council, and so the Council cannot be held accountable for this. Further investigation of this point is unlikely to lead to a finding of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman