Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns. There is insufficient evidence of fault and any injustice is not because of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of him and his wife, Mrs X. He complains the Council made false accusations against him and has been neglectful and unprofessional about his wife’s care. Mr X says the Council’s actions have put Mrs X’s life at risk and caused significant distress to their family.

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, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X had been admitted to hospital under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA). Mr X complained the Council had accused him of actions that led to the police arresting him and issuing him with a domestic violence protection notice (DVPN).
7. Councils have a duty under the Care Act 2014 to complete safeguarding enquiries where concerns exist that an adult with care and support needs may be at risk of abuse or neglect. If the Council was aware of concerns about the safety of a vulnerable adult, to start a safeguarding query would be in line with the Care Act and we are unlikely to find fault.
8. However, the Council explained that it did not send any concerns or referrals to the police about domestic violence and it had no open safeguarding concerns about Mr X. There are therefore no indications the Council’s actions led to the police action against Mr X. As the Council advised Mr X, he would need to take up any concerns about how the police acted directly with them.

Mr X also complained about the Council’s role in restricting Mrs X’s finances and changing her mobile phone payments.

9. The Council did have some involvement in safeguarding about Mrs X’s finances. It had assessed Mrs X as lacking capacity to manage her finances.
10. If someone is does not have the ability to manage their finances, a lasting power of attorney (LPA) can be appointed. A LPA can manage someone’s finances on their behalf. If there is no LPA in place, the Court of Protection can appoint a deputy or make decisions about someone’s finances.
11. The Care Act statutory guidance sets out a Council’s duties when a person cannot manage their finances. It says where a person lacks capacity, the Council must find out whether the person has a deputy of the Court of Protection or a person with LPA acting on their behalf. Where possible, local authorities should work with someone who has the legal authority to make financial decisions for a person who lacks capacity. If there is no such person, then the Council must refer to the Court of Protection.
12. In Mrs X’s case, there was no LPA in place for finances. The Council therefore restricted access to her finances until the Court of Protection decided how these should be managed. The Council’s actions appear to be in line with the Care Act statutory guidance and it is unlikely we would find fault. It would then be the Court’s decision about how these were managed and the Ombudsman cannot consider this.
13. Mr and Mrs X’s experiences have clearly caused them considerable distress and inconvenience. There are however no indications this was because of the Council’s actions when considering safeguarding. Mr X has complained separately to the NHS about Mrs X’s care in hospital while she was detained under section 3 of the MHA.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and any injustice claimed was not because of the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman