Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council wrongly took over the appointeeship of her late mother’s benefits. The complaint is late. Furthermore, the substantive matters have been considered by the courts and any injustice is either not significant enough or not due to the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council wrongly took over the appointeeship for her mother’s benefits. Ms X says the Council then failed to claim the benefits.
2. Ms X says the Council therefore denied her mother money she was entitled to. Ms X says she was also caused distress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

5. 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. For a number of years, Ms X was her mother’s appointee for benefits. This meant she was allowed to claim and receive Mrs M’s benefits on her behalf.
9. The Council was concerned that Ms X was not claiming all the benefits Mrs M was entitled to. It says it informed Ms X of this many times but did not receive a response. In 2021, a new social worker assigned to Mrs M discovered she was still not receiving some benefits. In 2022, the Council raised a safeguarding enquiry and decided it would apply to the Court of Protection to have Ms X’s appointeeship revoked.
10. In June 2022, the Court of Protection revoked the appointeeship and assigned the Council as Mrs M’s appointee. Ms X met with the Council shortly afterwards and said she had made an application for the benefits but not informed the Council. The Council therefore took the necessary steps to reapply to the Courts to give up the appointeeship. Because of this decision, the Council did not take any further steps in relation to Mrs M’s benefits.
11. Ms X has been aware of the issues she complained about for more than 12 months. I can see no good reason why she did not come earlier to us. Therefore, I will not exercise my discretion and investigate now.
12. But even if I did exercise discretion, I would not investigate. If Ms X was unhappy with the Council’s reasons to apply for the appointeeship to be revoked, she could have raised her concerns in the Court of Protection.
13. Furthermore, any injustice caused to Mrs M by her missing out on benefits up to the point the Council was granted appointeeship was not due to fault by the Council because it did not have the legal authority to make a claim on her behalf – only Ms X could have done so. And the Council’s decision not to pursue an application after being granted appointeeship was made without fault both because Ms X told officers she had made a successful application previously and because the Council decided to take immediate steps to revoke the appointeeship with the Court of Protection.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is late, the substantive matters have been considered by the courts and any injustice is either not significant enough or not due to the Council’s actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman