Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information provided by the Council about voting rights for people who are detained in hospital under the Mental Health Act. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains the Council wrongly told her she could not vote because she was detained in hospital under the Mental Health Act. Ms X wants an apology and compensation. She is concerned the Council might give the wrong information to other people.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the actions of hospital staff. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and information about voting rights for people detained in hospital. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Most people who have been detained under the Mental Health Act retain their right to vote. They may decide to have a postal vote or use a proxy. People can apply for an emergency proxy by 5pm on election day.
6. Ms X was registered to vote in an election. She was detained under the Mental Health Act a few days before the election. She was in hospital on election day. The hospital where she was admitted is in a different part of the country to where she was registered to vote.
7. Ms X wanted to vote and made enquiries with hospital staff. She says hospital stall offered a proxy vote by fax but Ms X wanted to vote in person. Ms X called the Council at 9pm on election day. The Council said it was too late to vote.
8. Ms X complained. In its first complaint reply the Council said people who are detained under the Mental Health Act cannot vote. The Council corrected this information in its second response but said that by the time Ms X contacted the Council it was too late to arrange a vote because the 5pm deadline had passed.
9. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. It is unfortunate Ms X could not vote and I appreciate she feels Council staff were unhelpful when she called. But, by the time she called, she could not have arranged an emergency proxy vote because the deadline had passed. So, regardless of what officers said, she could not have voted. In addition, while Ms X says she wanted to vote in person, she was many miles from her polling station, on the other side of the country, and the Council could not have arranged an in-person vote when she called at 9pm.
10. The Council gave wrong information in its initial response to Ms X’s complaint. However, this had no impact on whether Ms X could vote in the election and the information was subsequently corrected. In addition, I have not seen anything to suggest Ms X was misadvised by election staff when she called.
11. The Council has confirmed that, while the officer agrees the initial response was inaccurate, the team is aware of who can vote when detained, it has been discussed in a team meeting and training will be provided if needed. I appreciate Ms X wants to ensure other people are correctly advised but as there is no evidence that Ms X, or anyone else, was unable to vote due to mis-advice, then this does not need an investigation.
12. Ms X also says she poorly advised by hospital staff but I have no power to investigate hospital staff as they are not part of the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman