Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council considered and responded to safeguarding concerns. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Information Commissioner’s Office and the Court of Protection are better placed to consider other parts of the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has prevented he and other family members from exercising their lawful role as lasting power of attorney (LPA) for his brother, Mr Y. Mr X says the Council falsely claimed his father agreed to revoke the LPAs and will not correct its records to show this is not the case. He says the Council interfered with his subject access request (SAR) by directing other professionals not to reply to his request. Mr X also says the Council has relied on incorrect mental capacity assessments and failed to properly respond to safeguarding concerns.
2. Mr X says the Council’s actions have caused him to experience stress and exhaustion. He feels he is being forced into a battle with the Council to get it to correct false records and respond to his SAR. He says the impact on his health and wellbeing has been devastating. Mr X wants the Council to correct its records, to confirm the LPAs are valid and provide a written apology.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant including the Council’s response to his complaint.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X has an LPA in place for his brother, Mr Y which allows him to make certain decisions where Mr Y does not have mental capacity to do so. The LPA covers property and financial affairs and health and welfare decisions. Other family members are also named as Mr Y’s attorneys including their father.
8. He complained to the Council in August 2025 about several issues including his role as Mr Y’s LPA and other matters. This included (but not limited to) the Council’s response to his SAR and how it had responded to safeguarding concerns he raised. He asked the Council to respond and explained how the issues had impacted on him.
9. The Council responded to the complaint and apologised for the delay in responding to Mr X’s SAR. It said it was dealing with a high volume of requests. It said it had responded to the safeguarding concerns and confirmed the actions it had taken in response to the concerns. It confirmed it had removed an officer from having direct contact with Mr Y because of what he had said about the officer. The Council said it had acted on instructions from Mr Y that it did not want information shared with family members. It provided contact details to report any further concerns.
10. The Council said Mr Y had appointed six family members to act as his attorney. It said while Mr Y had mental capacity to make specific decisions this did not allow the LPAs to make decisions he could make himself. It referred to mental capacity assessments which it said were decision specific at the time the decision needed to be made. The Council said Mr Y wanted to revoke the LPAs and in that event it would support him with his finances. It said it would appoint an independent advocate and would consider an application to the Court of Protection as necessary.
11. We will not investigate the issues relating to the SAR Mr X made to the Council and what he says about false information in the Council’s records. The Office of the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider a complaint about these issues.
12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the issues relating to his and other family members role as Mr Y’s attorney. The Court of Protection is better placed to consider issues surrounding Mr Y’s capacity to make specific decisions and what the Council has said about apply for Deputyship.
13. We will not investigate the issues Mr X raised about safeguarding concerns. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Council provided a response to Mr X about what it had done to consider the safeguarding concerns raised. We look at the processes an organisation follows to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Mr X disagrees with the decision the Council made.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council responded to safeguarding concerns because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Information Commissioner’s Office and the Court of Protection is better placed to consider other matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman