Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled a safeguarding alert he raised about his sister’s appointee and the Council actions over his application to become his sister’s deputy. We do not consider Mr X to be a suitable representative for his sister.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to safeguard his sister, Ms Z, from her appointee. He also complains the Council’s safeguarding investigation into these concerns was flawed and it has wrongly decided to apply to the Court of Protection to remove Mr X’s appointeeship and to have itself appointed as Ms X’s deputy.
2. Mr X says it has caused Ms Z and himself distress, Ms X has been defrauded of her money and he has spent money on expenses pursuing these matters.
3. Mr X wants to be reimbursed for money he says he has spent and for the relevant Council staff to be retrained.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. If they are not able to give their consent, we can consider whether the person bringing the complaint is a “suitable representative”. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1) and (2), as amended)
5. 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))
6. 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

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Ms Z lives in supported living and has been assessed as not having capacity to make decisions about her finances. Her brother, Mr X, has lasting power of attorney for Ms X. Another person, P, used to be Ms Z’s appointee for the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). This meant P could receive any of Ms Z’s benefits and use them to pay Ms Z’s bills.
10. Mr X later applied to be Ms Z’s DWP appointee which was granted. Mr X also applied to the Court of Protection to be appointed Ms Z’s deputy. The Council, and a number of other bodies, are challenging this application. There is a current application from the Council to the Court to appoint it as Ms Z’s deputy.
11. Ms X has sent us a signed consent form from Ms Z. However, the fact that Mr X and the Council are applying to the Court of Protection for deputyship, casts sufficient doubt on Ms Z’s capacity for me to not accept this consent as valid.
12. I have also considered other factors such as whether Mr X is, or has, acted in Ms Z’s best interests. There is sufficient evidence for me to conclude that on balance, he has not done so.
13. Ms Z has also been represented by a support worker in the recent past. Therefore, I consider someone of this nature, would be more suitable to represent Ms X in any complaints about her wellbeing.
14. But even if I considered Mr X to be a suitable representative, we would not investigate. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with Mr X’s safeguarding concerns to justify an investigation. And the matter of deputyship is now before the Court of Protection and so we cannot investigate this element of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we do not consider him to be a suitable representative.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman