Summary: Mr X complained the Council stopped communicating with him in relation to his late aunt, Ms Y, without explaining its reasons why. The Council was at fault. It did not write to Mr X and tell him it would communicate with him via email. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X for the frustration and uncertainty it caused him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council stopped communicating with him in relation to his late aunt, Ms Y, without explaining its reasons why. He said this caused him frustration and uncertainty. He wants the Council to acknowledge it was at fault and to apologise to him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I spoke with Mr X and considered information he provided.
5. I considered information provided by the Council.
6. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Mental capacity and Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA)

7. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is the framework for acting and deciding for people who lack the mental capacity to make particular decisions for themselves. The Act introduced the “Lasting Power of Attorney”. An LPA is a legal document, which allows a person (‘the donor’) to choose one or more persons to make decisions for them, when they become unable to do so themselves.
8. If there is a need for continuing decision-making powers and there is no relevant LPA, the Court of Protection may appoint a deputy to make decisions for a person. It will also say what decisions the deputy has the authority to make on the person’s behalf. The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) oversees the work of attorneys and court-appointed deputies and produces detailed guidance for them.

What happened

9. Mr X and his aunt, Ms Y, jointly owned a property. Ms Y had a health condition which affected her mental capacity. She lived in a care home. Ms Y did not have an LPA of health and welfare. Mr X said he was registered with the Council as Ms Y’s next of kin. He was involved with Ms Y’s care.
10. In early May 2024, the Council wrote to Mr X and told him Ms Y wanted an independent third party to manage her finances. As a result, the Council referred the matter to its financial safeguarding team. The Council said it would then submit an application to the Court of Protection to appoint an appropriate person to manage Ms Y’s financial affairs.
11. Mr X wanted to sell the property he shared with Ms Y. In May 2024, Mr X and his legal advisor contacted the Council as Mr X wanted to apply to the Court of Protection to become a Trustee. This would allow him to sell the property. Mr X’s legal advisor wanted information from the Council about Ms Y to support their application. The Council responded to Mr X’s legal advisor and said due to data protection, it was unable to share any information with them.
12. Shortly after, the Council contacted Mr X about Ms Y’s care home fees. It asked Mr X if he would be able to contribute towards the cost of Ms Y’s fees as the cost was more than the Council would normally pay. In response, Mr X asked the Council why Ms Y was not able to contribute towards the fees and he asked the Council to arrange a financial assessment with Ms Y. Mr X told us the Council told him it had already completed a financial assessment with Ms Y and it was not able to discuss it further with him.
13. Towards the end of June 2024, Mr X complained to the Council. Mr X said he:
• was concerned about his aunt’s finances as she had care home fees as well as costs associated with the home they jointly owned;
• wanted to sell the property so his aunt could put the money towards her care; and
• was unhappy the Council had stopped sharing information with him about his aunt.

Mr X wanted the Council to discuss Ms Y’s financial matters with him.

14. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint and said it had shared his concerns with the wider adult social care team. It said it was unable to share information about Ms Y with him due to data protection.
15. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to us.
16. The Council’s records show it communicated with Mr X in September and October 2024 in relation to Ms Y, in response to contact from him and the care home.
17. Ms Y died in October 2024.
18. In response to my enquiries, the Council said:
• it did not cease contact with Mr X. It had nothing to report to Mr X between June and September 2024; and
• it verbally told Mr X in March 2024 it would write to him rather than speak to him as it believed Mr X had misunderstood what it had advised him previously. The Council has no written evidence of this. Mr X said the Council never told him this.

Back to top

Findings

19. The Council said it told Mr X verbally that it would communicate with him via email rather than over the phone as previously Mr X had misinterpreted the advice it had given him. The Council has no written evidence to support this and Mr X said he was never told this. Without further evidence, I cannot make a finding on what exactly the Council told Mr X however, the Council was at fault for not explaining its position in writing to Mr X. This caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty.
20. The Council told Mr X it was not able to share information about Ms Y’s financial affairs with him due to data protection. This was appropriate as Mr X did not have the legal right to review this information. The Council did continue to communicate as required and responded to Mr X’s queries via email.

Back to top

Agreed action

21. Within one month of the final decision, the Council will apologise to Mr X for the frustration and uncertainty it caused him when it did not tell him in writing that it preferred to email rather than speak on the telephone to avoid misinterpretation.
22. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have now completed my investigation. The Council was at fault. It has agreed to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman