Summary: There is no fault in an email to Ms X putting two options to resolve a dispute between her and a relative about her mother’s finances. We have ended the investigation of other complaints for two reasons. Firstly, the Council has apologised and offered an appropriate symbolic payment to reflect Ms X’s avoidable distress and we could achieve nothing further by investigating. Secondly, we cannot achieve the outcome Ms X’s seeks because the Council is not responsible for managing her mother’s finances. So we would not recommend it reimburses her.

The complaint

1. Ms X has mental health problems and cares for her mother Ms Y who has dementia. Another relative, Mr Z, manages Ms Y’s finances as her attorney. The complaints in this paragraph are about the Council’s involvement with Ms Y from 2021. Ms X alleged Mr Z was not reimbursing her for expenses she had incurred on Ms Y’s behalf or making available funding to spend for Ms Y’s benefit. Ms X complained:
1. A social worker reassured her the Council would resolve a dispute with Mr Z about reimbursement of expenses and said Ms X would get her money back; and
2. A manager sent a threatening email in February 2023 saying if she did not agree to the Council’s plan, the Council would cease contact/involvement.
2. The complaints in this paragraph are about the Council’s assessment of Ms X’s social needs. Ms X complained:
1. She was lied to about the allocation process and timescales;
2. The social worker did not call her back as promised and said she refused an assessment;
3. Another social worker was acrimonious;
4. She had not received a copy of her assessment or care and support plan; and
5. A referral to carer’s support breached confidentiality
3. Ms X said she felt bullied and threatened by the Council and this caused her avoidable distress and a financial loss of about £15,000 because her sibling will not repay her.
4. Ms X wants the Council to:
• Repay all the money she is owed and recoup this from Mr Z and fund therapy and support for her.
• Train staff
• Revert to safeguarding processes and get the funding sorted out.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
7. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
8. We 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

9. I have investigated complaint 1(b), although it is late. This is because Ms X has chronic health problems making it difficult for her to make a timely complaint. And the Council took 10 months to respond to her complaint. It was appropriate for Ms X to seek to resolve her complaint with the Council before contacting us.
10. I have not investigated complaint 1(a) because an LGSCO investigation cannot achieve the outcome Ms X seeks: reimbursement of the money she has paid out for Ms Y. The Council is not legally responsible for managing Ms Y’s finances: Mr Z is. This means any money due to Ms X would not be the Council’s responsibility to pay regardless of any fault by the Council. So we would not recommend a reimbursement. The evidence indicates the Council sought to try and resolve the dispute between Ms X and Mr Z about payment and although this was not successful, this does not mean there was fault by the Council.
11. The Council is not responsible for reimbursing money Ms X has spent from her own funds. If Ms X wanted more direct control of Ms Y’s finances, she should have made an application to the Court of Protection in 2021. I accept there would be a cost to Ms X if she instructed a lawyer, although it is possible to bring a claim without a lawyer. The Court of Protection is the expert body for formal resolution of disputes involving adults who lack capacity, where informal dispute resolution has been unsuccessful, notwithstanding the costs for those involved. The dispute is now before the Court of Protection.
12. I have also not investigated complaints of injustice affecting Ms Y because there is no evidence of injustice to her. The information available indicates there are no concerns for her wellbeing and Ms X and Mr Z are meeting her financial needs between them. Ms X told me she accepted this.
13. I have not investigated complaints 2(a) to (e) because there is nothing further to be achieved through an investigation. The Council upheld the complaints in its response. It acknowledged that communication was not of the expected standard and there was a failure to call Ms X back. The Council apologised and offered a payment of £200 to reflect Ms X’s distress and avoidable time and trouble, It confirmed it had sent Ms X copies of the assessment and care and support plan. These remedies are appropriate and in line with our expectations and guidance on remedies.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

14. I considered the complaint to us, the Council’s response to the complaint and documents from Ms X and the Council set out in this statement. I discussed the complaint with Ms X.
15. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

16. Section 42 of the Care Act 2014 requires a council to make enquiries or cause others to do so if it believes an adult with care needs is at risk of abuse or neglect. An enquiry should establish whether any action needs to be taken to prevent abuse. This process is called ‘safeguarding.’

Summary of main events

17. Ms X’s mother, Ms Y, has dementia and they live together. Ms Y lacks mental capacity to manage her finances. Mr Z, is his mother’s attorney for financial matters. This gives him legal power to manage her savings, income, property and other assets.
18. Ms X has a long-running dispute with Mr Z about access to and use of Ms Y’s money. The dispute involves money Ms Z has already spent and arrangements for future payment of Ms Y’s daily living costs and other expenses like equipment and adaptations to the home.
19. The Council received a report that Mr Z had not provided funds for Ms Y’s daily living costs for the past five months. The Council opened a safeguarding enquiry in June 2021, held a number of meetings over the following 18 months under safeguarding procedures and decided there was no future risk to Ms Y’s finances and she was being well cared for by Ms X.
20. In February 2023, a manager emailed Ms X saying:
• Mediation and negotiation with Mr Y around payment arrangements was not part of the social worker’s role, although she had done this;
• There was confusion about whether Ms X wanted the social worker to send the receipts to Mr Z;
• Mr Z had since contacted the social worker and said he wanted to meet with her to find a way forward;
• The social worker was willing to attend the meeting. Her role in this meeting was to ascertain Mr Z’s position in relation to this matter, and feedback this back to Ms X for her consideration. It is not, however, the social worker’s role to contribute to any form of negotiation; and
• Ms X needed to say whether she wanted the meeting to take place or if she preferred to make her own arrangements with Mr Z.
21. The safeguarding procedures ended formally in July 2023 when Ms X received a letter from the Council saying there was insufficient evidence of continuing risk to Ms Y to justify further action. The Council acknowledged the difficulties Ms X continued to have obtaining payments from Mr Z, but as there was no risk to Ms Y, it was closing the case.
22. Ms X complained to the Council in August 2023 raising similar concerns as those in her complaint to us and other concerns. There was a delay in the Council’s response and she complained to us in April 2024. The Council eventually responded in June. The response included an apology for its delay.
23. Ms X told me she and her siblings had been made parties to an application the Council has recently made to the Court of Protection. The proceedings have not concluded yet. She said the application was for the court to decide about Ms Y’s future care and residence. And the parties had also raised with the court the issue of whether Mr Z’s role as financial attorney should be revoked and if so, who should be appointed to manage Ms Y’s finances.

Was there fault?

Complaint 1(b) A manager sent a threatening email in 2023 saying if she did not agree to the Council’s plan, the Council would cease contact.

24. There is no fault by the Council. There is no threat by the manager. The email put forward two options (1) the social worker meeting with Mr Z or (2) Ms X making her own arrangements with Mr Z to resolve the matter herself.
25. There is no threat in the email which sets out the Council’s position and gives Ms X the options. It is clear and factual.

Back to top

Final decision

26. There is no fault in an email to Ms X which is clear and factual.
27. I completed the investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman