Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care and adult safeguarding. This is because we do not have consent from the person receiving the service to consider a complaint about their care support. And because there is not a significant enough injustice to the person complaining to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council is withholding Ms C’s funds, is accusing Mr B of theft and failing to answer his questions. Mr B says the Council’s actions have caused him stress, and caused financial loss to Ms C. Mr B wants the Council to answer his questions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

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. Ms C is an adult with social care needs, who the Council supports. Ms C gave general power of attorney to Mr B, which means Mr B can handle Ms C’s affairs when she cannot do so, for example if unwell. Mr B’s general power of attorney does not mean he is entitled to information about Ms C if she does not want the Council to share any information. The general power of attorney also does not entitle Mr B to act for Ms C when she can act for her herself. The Council says Ms C does not want information shared. Ms C has mental capacity to make her own decisions and has now appointed a solicitor to act as her attorney. We do not have consent for Mr B to make a complaint for Ms C so we cannot consider concerns about Ms C’s care or finances. The Council is also limited on what information it can share with Mr B as it must meet Ms C’s wishes about her personal data.
7. However, Mr B has his own complaint about the Council’s correspondence, including what he says is an unfounded accusation of theft. The Council is responsible as the safeguarding authority to protect vulnerable adults in its area from harm. Although it is stressful to be the accused, we would not find fault in the Council considering any concerns and conducting a safeguarding enquiry where it has received a concern that triggers this process.
8. We do not investigate all complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints. We would not investigate solely to get answers for Mr B.
9. Mr B is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to justify our involvement. Although Mr B is stressed and frustrated, it is not serious enough for us to commit our resource. Especially where the sharing of information is limited, and we may not be able to achieve the outcomes Mr B wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman