The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council treated Mrs X when she raised safeguarding concerns about her brother, Mr Y. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
The complaint
Mrs X complained the Council and the care provider it commissions for her brother, Mr Y, treated her poorly. The Council investigated safeguarding concerns about Mr Y’s finances. Mrs X says it passed her round and never gave her any answers. It misquoted her. Events have negatively affected Mrs X’s relationship with her brother. She wants written apologies.
Mrs X raised complaints to the Council on behalf of Mr Y, but she explained her complaint to us is not on behalf of her brother and focuses only on how she was treated. I have not therefore considered her complaints that are on behalf of Mr Y.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mrs X raised concerns with the Council about how her brother’s (Mr Y’s) finances were being handled by his care provider. She raised concerns about some purchases and withdrawals which she believed to be suspicious.
The Council explained to Mrs X that it had considered the information she provided, and it discussed the issue with Mr Y. It assessed his mental capacity – his ability to make his own decision about his finances and the safeguarding process – and found he had capacity. It explained to Mrs X it would not disclose the outcome of its safeguarding enquiries to her, in line with Mr Y’s wishes. It explained that Mr Y would be supported to manage his own bank account.
I have not considered the detail of the Council’s assessments of Mr Y, because Mrs X’s complaint is not on Mr Y’s behalf. I can therefore only accept the Council’s assertion that Mr Y has capacity to make his own decisions. Therefore, we would not expect information to be shared with Mrs Y against her brother’s wishes, and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.
If Mrs X wishes to challenge the Council’s capacity assessment, the appropriate way to do so would be via the Court of Protection.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman