Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about what the Council may have told Mr X before he sought a Special Guardianship Order. This matter is not separable from matters that formed part of court action, and any failure by his legal representative to explain the options available to him at that time would be a matter he should take up with that person and then approach the Legal Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied with the response.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council misled him when he was seeking a Special Guardianship Order (SGO) by saying it was the only option, when he could have been better off financially by becoming a family and friends carer.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), 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. An SGO is a court order and Mr X was legally represented and advised. The financial implications and other trade-offs of becoming a special guardian rather than a family and friends carer are thus closely linked to matters that formed part of the court action. The care plan he sent us was issued before the court order. It referred to payments only being guaranteed for two years, and it having been agreed that Mr X would receive some payment for legal advice. So, it would have been clear that, under the planned route of an SGO, financial support was not guaranteed in the long-term. Mr X’s contention is that he was told before the court case his only option was an SGO. I would have expected this to be discussed when Mr X was sought legal advice before the court case. If Mr X is of the view the legal advice he received was misleading or incomplete, he would have the right to complain of this to the legal advisor, and if still dissatisfied, to approach the Legal Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint because the matters complained of are closely linked to matters decided by a court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman