Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions as a financial deputy. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms C says the Council has not completed a proper capacity assessment for a long time, about her ability to manage her finances. Ms C says the Council failed to provide her with an advocate or complete assessments in a way she could fully take part. Ms C says the Council has not given her information about her finances, and not provided the agreed training to help her work towards managing her own finances. Ms C wants the freedom to live her life.

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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused significant enough injustice to the person who complained to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is a law that protects vulnerable people over the age of 16 around decision making. Every adult has the right to make their own decisions where possible, and should be supported to make their own decisions if they can. But if a decision is too big or complicated for a person to make, even with suitable information and support, then people supporting them must make a ‘best interests’ decision for them.
6. The Council decided it is in Ms C’s best interests for someone else to manage her finances and has appointed its Deputy and Appointee Team.
7. The Council keep under review whether this remains in Ms C’s best interests. It completes Mental Capacity Assessments (MCA) to decide whether Ms C could manage her own finances. Ms C complains about the Council’s MCAs over the last few years.
8. Where a person lacks capacity to make certain decisions for themselves, and does not have a close family member or friend to support them, they have the right to an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate in certain circumstances. Under the Care Act a person also has a right to an advocate where they have substantial difficulty engaging in the process. Ms C argues the Council should have provided her with an advocate, the Council says Ms C could engage without one.
9. We do not need to investigate whether Ms C should have had an advocate at previous assessments because it would not change the outcome. Ms C had an advocate at an MCA earlier this year, and even with that support to engage in the process, the Council decided Ms C does not have capacity to manage her own finances. So even if the Council had provided an advocate at previous assessments the outcome would be the same and there is no significant injustice.
10. The Council accepted some failures, for example not sending copies of previous assessments when asked. The Council has apologised for its errors, which is appropriate action in response. The Ombudsman could not add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome.
11. Although Ms C says the Council has not given her information about her finances, I have seen evidence it has provided Ms C with information about her income, spending, and savings.
12. The Council told Ms C it would meet with her in mid-May to agree a plan for financial training, which it would then check weekly, with a plan to review Ms C’s capacity at an appropriate stage. Ms C complained to the Ombudsman that this has not happened. The Council explains it did not start when expected because of a decline in Ms C’s mental health. But the support started in mid-June. The Ombudsman would not criticise this delay, because the Council has provided good reasons for it.
13. The Council has correctly advised Ms C that to challenge its decisions about her capacity, or to have a different deputy appointed, Ms C can appeal to the Court of Protection. Ms C says the Council has not given her enough support on how to do this, and she does not know if she could afford the court costs. I have seen evidence the Council has advised Ms C of her savings and gave information to her advocates, who could support her in the process.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate M C’s complaint because any fault has not caused significant injustice, we could not add to the Council’s investigation, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman