Birmingham City Council wrongly started an adult protection investigation into the affairs of a man’s elderly aunt, finds Local Government Ombudsman, Anne Seex.

In her report, issued today (16 October 2012) she says the Council failed to treat the woman’s nephew “fairly and within the rules of natural justice… It caused him the considerable injustice of being the suspected perpetrator in an unnecessarily and unreasonably prolonged adult protection investigation.” He was deeply hurt and upset by what occurred.

She continued: “Although it acted on my recommendations, the Council took years to accept it had been wrong. In the circumstances, and even though the original events happened some years ago, I decided to issue this report as a matter of public interest.”

Mr A helped his elderly aunt manage her affairs and she gave him an enduring power of attorney. The Council arranged care services for her in her own home. Problems arose, including money going missing and care workers using her telephone for overseas calls. Mr A pressed the Council to deal with the problems. One of the Council’s responses was to set up a ‘money manager’ account to transfer funds from his aunt’s bank to the Council so that care workers could buy what she needed.

Mr A's aunt moved into a residential care home in Spring 2005. She paid the full cost herself and agreed to pay the Council each week and it would pay the home. Some weeks later, the Council said she should pay the home direct instead. Mr A questioned this and paid the fees into the ‘money manager’ account with the Council. He complained formally to the Council in June 2005.

The Council did not pay the home. A doctor who visited expressed concern that the home wasn’t being paid and Mr A’s aunt had no pocket money. Council officers knew that Mr A was paying the fees into the ‘money manager’ account and that he had complained about them. They decided to involve the police and start an adult protection investigation into whether Mr A was financially abusing his aunt.

The Council told Mr A that his aunt was subject to an adult protection investigation but gave him no details. Six months later, the Council told Mr A it could not deal with his complaints and the adult protection investigation at the same time.

The Council refused Mr A’s requests for information about the adult protection issue. In July 2006 it closed the adult protection investigation and told Mr A. It appointed an independent officer to deal with his complaints.

Mr A's aunt died in March 2007.

Mr A was not satisfied with the Council's response to his complaints. The Ombudsman investigated and concluded the Council had not treated Mr A fairly. She met the Council's Chief Executive and Director of Adult Social Care, who accepted there had been maladministration and agreed to apologise to Mr A and pay him £350 in recognition of his time and trouble.

The Director met Mr A to discuss the issues raised, but unfortunately that did not resolve matters. The Director maintained that officers had been right to start an adult protection investigation. That was contrary to the Ombudsman's conclusion and Mr A could not accept it. The Ombudsman issued a draft report. Eventually, after Mr A had spent a great deal of time on the point, the Director accepted that officers had been wrong to start the adult protection investigation.

Mr A is active in public life and holds positions of responsibility in his community. His good name is important to him. He believes public services should be open to challenge and learn from mistakes. Despite his constructive efforts and the Ombudsman’s investigation, his experience was that the Council was not willing to do so.

The Ombudsman found the Council failed to treat Mr A fairly and within the rules of natural justice because the officers who started the adult protection investigation:

• knew Mr A had complained about them
• knew he was paying the Council the fees for the home
• did not consider relevant parts of the Council's policy or follow its procedures
• did not re-evaluate as they got new information, and
• generated suspicions about Mr A on the flimsiest basis.

This was compounded when other officers became involved and they:

• did not assemble, assess and fairly evaluate the grounds for the suspicions about Mr A and did not consider information that would have put him in a different light
• interpreted Mr A's legitimate and reasonable actions adversely
• made decisions without reviewing all the available information in a structured way, and
• tried to justify the adult protection investigation to the Ombudsman with no supporting evidence and with arguments that were contradicted by the facts.

The Ombudsman also found, and the Council accepted some time ago, that it had acted with maladministration in not managing the adult protection investigation properly and not dealing with Mr A's original complaints.

Since then, Mr A has had to take additional time and trouble. Senior officers resisted the findings in the Ombudsman’s draft report. They eventually capitulated on the basis of no more evidence than was set out in the draft report, that should have existed in the Council’s own records and had been supplied directly by Mr A. The Ombudsman considers that issuing this report is an appropriate remedy for that injustice to Mr A.

Report ref no 07C13163

Article date: 16 October 2012