Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions relating to Mrs Y’s welfare and residence. Mr X is not a suitable representative for complaints relating to Mrs Y’s care and residence, and in any event these complaints have been considered in court. The Information Commissioner is best placed to consider complaints about the Council’s decision not to share information.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained to us in his capacity as Mrs Y’s court-appointed deputy for property and finances. His complaints included the Council:
1. declined to share information with him relating to Mrs Y’s residence and welfare;
2. failed to sufficiently consider the circumstances to satisfy itself Mrs Y could safely return home after time spent in residential care, and made representations to the court that may not have been in Mrs Y’s best interests;
3. did not properly consider a safeguarding referral he made relating to the condition of Mrs Y’s property and concerns about her care; and
4. declined to share information with him about Mrs Y’s finances.
2. Mr X said Mrs Y remained at risk and the Council’s lack of engagement had incurred Mrs Y additional legal fees. He wanted the Council to share the requested information and take steps to resolve the safety concerns.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who cannot authorise someone to act for them. The complaint may be made by:
• their personal representative (if they have one), or
• someone we consider to be suitable.
4. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(2), as amended)
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)
6. 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 another body better placed to consider the complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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. Mr X says Mrs Y returned home after some time spent in residential care. This resulted from a challenge in the Court of Protection under Section 21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This occurred before Mr X became her deputy, and he has limited information about the proceedings. He says his organisation has more recently raised safeguarding concerns with the Council relating to the condition of Mrs Y’s property and how her needs are being met.
10. Mr X is Mrs Y’s court-appointed deputy for decisions relating to property and finances. He is appointed in a professional capacity and is not involved in her day-to-day care or in a personal sense. Mr X is a suitable representative for Mrs Y in relation to financial matters, but does not have any representative status for matters relating to decisions about her health and welfare.
11. Given that Mr X is Mrs Y’s deputy for property and finances only, and is otherwise not involved in her day-to-day care, we would not consider him suitable to bring complaints a) to c) to us on Mrs Y’s behalf. These relate to health and welfare issues, and it is likely there are other people who would have a valid claim to being more suitable to represent Mrs Y in such matters.
12. In any event, we could not investigate these matters as they have been considered in court. We cannot consider what happened in court, which includes the content of the Council’s representations. We have no power to change the court’s decision, and the only way to challenge that or seek a new decision would be via further proceedings. We also would have no power to consider complaint c), as this has more recently been referred to the courts.
13. While Mr X is a suitable representative for Mrs Y in matters relating to her finances, we are not the body best placed to consider complaint d). The Information Commissioner is best placed to consider Mr X’s complaint about the Council declining to share Mrs Y’s financial information. There is not a good reason for us to consider the matter instead, given that we cannot consider the other matters Mr X raises.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because Mr X is not a suitable representative for complaints relating to Mrs Y’s care and residence, and in any event these complaints have been considered in court. The Information Commissioner is best placed to consider complaints about the Council’s decision not to share information.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman