Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s refusal to investigate Mr X’s concerns about a relative. This is because Mr X is not a suitable representative to raise the complaint as he is not legally authorised to represent his relative. We would not consider a complaint about the complaints process if we are not looking at the underlying complaint. And there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s response to Mr X’s safeguarding complaint.

The complaint

1. In summary, Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to investigate concerns he raised regarding the care, management and decision-making relating to his relative who is need of care and support.
2. Mr X says the Council wrongly refused to consider his complaint because he does not hold a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) and failed to properly address his concerns about the Council’s social care practice, complaint handling and governance.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who has died or 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.
  (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(2), as amended)

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

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 complains about several issues around the Council’s treatment of his relative. He said there were potential failures to follow the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and best interests’ principles. He also said there was a failure to involve family members appropriately in decisions affecting his brother. And that his relative’s possessions were disposed/removed without proper authority or consultation. Mr X alleges the Council has responded to him inaccurately.
8. The Council’s responses show that although the Council closed the complaint regarding Mr X’s relative, it arranged a review of the case for its internal learning. It also advised him there was an open safeguarding investigation ongoing and it would update him when it was complete.
9. We will not investigate. We expect complaints to be brought by the person affected or by someone authorised to act on their behalf. The information I have seen shows Mr X does not hold a LPA or any other authority for his relative. Therefore, we cannot investigate his complaint as it relates to Council decisions about his relative.
10. I have considered if there are any matters we could investigate. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of the safeguarding aspect of the complaint. This is because the safeguarding investigation is ongoing. And we would not look at the Council’s complaint handling when we are not looking at the substantive matters. This is because it would not be proportionate to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he is not a suitable representative to bring most parts of the complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s response to the safeguarding element of his complaint. And we do not look at the complaints process in isolation when we are not looking at the core complaints as it is not proportionate to do so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman