Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council completed safeguarding enquiries. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate safeguarding concerns he raised in relation to his father, Mr Y. He said the Council also failed to recognise the Lasting Power of Attorney (LPOA) he holds for Mr Y and would not share Mr Y’s case records with him.
2. Mr X said the Council’s actions had impacted on his relationship with Mr Y. He said he cannot visit him freely. He wants access to Mr Y’s care records, a copy of the Council’s safeguarding enquiries and confirmation, as to why the Council has not recognised the LPOA.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X raised concerns with the Council that Mr Y was at risk of financial abuse and that his care needs were not being met. The Council completed safeguarding enquiries; it also completed a review of Mr Y’s care needs. The Council did not find any evidence to substantiate the concerns raised.
8. Although Mr X is unhappy with this outcome, we will not investigate his complaint. I have reviewed the Council’s enquiries and the care needs review. I am satisfied the Council fully considered the concerns and sought additional information where necessary. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
9. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council will not share Mr Y’s care records, or that it has not recognised the LPOA he holds for Mr Y. The Council confirmed Mr Y had historically stated he did not consent to the sharing of his personal information with Mr X. The Council completed a further Mental Capacity Assessment of Mr Y. It assessed him as still having the capacity to make decisions around information sharing. In this assessment, Mr Y still did not consent to the sharing of his personal information with Mr X.
10. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council completed Mr Y’s capacity assessment. The assessment clearly sets out the decision to be made and why the assessor was satisfied Mr Y could make it. Therefore, we will not investigate; the Council is following Mr Y’s wishes. The LPOA only becomes active where a person does not have capacity to make a decision.
11. In addition, if Mr X disagrees with the outcome of the Council’s capacity assessment it would be reasonable for him to rise his concerns with the Court of Protection, as it deals with disputes around capacity. If he believes that his sibling is misusing their LPOA, then that is a matter for the Office of the Public Guardian.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman