The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: there is no fault by the Council on this complaint that the Council failed to ensure that utility bills, rent and personal expenses were properly handled after the Council became the complainant’s appointee in late 2019
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, says the Council has failed to properly ensure that it has paid his utility bills and rent since it took over the management of his financial affairs in 2019. He also says the Council left him without any money from his benefits.
This complaint has been made on Mr C’s behalf by a representative, whom I shall refer to as Ms B.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I carefully considered the written information Ms B provided with the complaint and offered her the opportunity to discuss the complaint with my by telephone. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered all the information before reaching a draft decision on it.
Mr C’s complaint dates back to late 2019. Mr C and Ms B knew about these events more than 12 months before he complained to the Ombudsman. However, I have decided to exercise my discretion to consider the complaint because Mr C’s vulnerability and capacity, the significance of the issues raised and the ongoing nature of the allegations of fault are good enough reasons to persuade me to do so.
Ms B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
What should have happened 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 (and the Code of Practice 2007) describes the steps a person should take when dealing with someone who may lack capacity to make decisions for themselves. It describes when to assess a person’s capacity to make a decision, how to do this, and how to make a decision on behalf of somebody who cannot do so.
A key principle of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is that any act done for, or any decision made on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be in that person’s best interests. The decision-maker also has to consider if there is a less restrictive choice available that can achieve the same outcome.
A Council appointee is put in place by the Department for Work and Pensions and means the Council becomes responsible for acting in the best interests of an individual by managing their benefits to ensure their bills are paid.
A council must make enquiries if it thinks a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has care and support needs which mean the person cannot protect themselves. An enquiry is the action taken by a council in response to a concern about abuse or neglect. An enquiry could range from a conversation with the person who is the subject of the concern, to a more formal multi-agency arrangement. A council must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse. (section 42, Care Act 2014) What happened
Background
Mr C is described by the Council as “vulnerable” with “significant health needs”.
In May 2019 the Council received a referral from a professional working with Mr C stating that Ms B was mismanaging Mr C’s finances. Mr C was reported to have been without money to buy himself food. In addition his gas, electricity and water bills had not been paid nor a debt repaid on his water bill. He was reported as having been contacted by a number of debt recovery agencies. The referral notes state that similar issues and concerns had been expressed in 2016 and 2017.
The Council responded to these concerns by devising a safeguarding plan.
The Council arranged a best interests discussion in June 2019. This meeting confirmed that a social worker had interviewed Mr C and concluded that he did not have capacity to make complex decisions about his finances. Mr C had told the social worker that he left decisions about payment of his bills to Ms B. It was noted that Ms B did not agree there were any utility debts and was in dispute with various utility companies about this. Ms B had consequently not paid earlier bills on Mr C’s behalf leaving him with large arrears. This had resulted in Mr C’s gas supply being cut off and at risk of other utilities being cut off.
Mr C was reported as being too stressed about the matter to discuss it. The meeting concluded that it would be in Mr C’s best interests to become an appointee for Mr C in order to take over management of his benefit payments to ensure his bills were paid.
In December 2019 the Council duly became appointee for Mr C because it had concluded he does not have mental capacity to deal with utility companies and ensure he had a supply of gas, electricity and water.
The Council has provided evidence which confirms that it wrote to the utility companies in March 2020 to say it had not become an appointee for Mr C’s benefits. The Council asked these companies how to go about paying off Mr C’s debts and to cease any debt recovery action. The water provider agreed to work with the Council to resolve the debts but the gas and electricity companies have not agreed to do this with regard to the debts without the agreement of Mr C which he will not currently provide. The Council has, however, taken over ongoing management of the current bills.
The Council confirms that Mr C now has heating and hot water. It confirms the appointee arrangements has enabled the Council to work with Mr B’s housing provider to ensure that some of Mr C’s income is regularly used to top-up his gas and electricity supply. This is managed by Mr C having a top-up card that is held by the housing provider’s support service who work with Mr C.
The Council says it has managed to ensure that the substantial arrears on Mr C’s water bill have been resolved.
The Council has confirmed that Mr C is currently paying around £250 per month towards utility bills and arrears on these. This leaves him with sufficient money for his personal use but the Council says Mr C is unwilling to use this money despite the Council making alternative ways for him to use or access this – cash or on a prepayment card. The Council says that Mr C’s mental health is poor and this is contributing to the issues around this but the Council is still working to try to resolve this with Mr C.
With regards to Mr C’s food shopping the Council commissioned a local service to buy Mr C’s weekly food for him. However, he cancelled this arrangement and Ms B took over this role. The Council is clear that it will reimburse the money Ms B is spending on this for Mr C if she provides receipts and evidence of these purchases.
The Council confirms there was an issue with Mr C’s gas meter in 2021. It says the housing support service assisted with this but the replacement was delayed by Mr C not agreeing to allow access for the installation of this for some time. The Council says that supply also stopped on two other occasions when the gas top-up card was sent directly to Mr C as it went missing. This has since been resolved by the housing support service holding these cards to ensure these issues with supply do not recur in future.
The Council says it is open to arranging a meeting with Ms B to try to resolve the ongoing issues of the arrears on Mr C’s gas and electricity accounts. The Council is also clear that it is willing to reimburse Ms B for electricity and gas she paid for Mr C in the past and for food that she had bought for him more recently and that it can talk to her about the ways in which it can arrange this. The Council is happy for Ms B to be accompanied by an advocate in any such discussion.
The Council confirms that Mr C’s rent is paid by housing benefit which is paid direct to his rent account.
Ms B’s complaint to the Council Ms B submitted a complaint in February 2020. The Council provided a response at stage 1 of its complaints procedure in July 2020. Ms B complained that Mr C has not had any money in his bank account since November 2019, he had been without gas, heating or hot water for two years and his gas meter was faulty. In response the Council said: the Council became Mr C’s appointee in December 2019 and this meant his benefits were paid into an account managed by the Council’s finance team. This was why Mr C did not have any money in his bank account. The Council said it had taken over responsibility for Mr C’s finances following a safeguarding investigation in 2019 which arose because his finances were not being managed and his bills were unpaid and he was in debt and being threatened with recovery action; a gas pre-payment meter had been installed to ensure Mr C had a gas supply but there was a debt on the gas account; the Council had offered to repay Ms B amounts she had paid for items for Mr C but she had not supplied her bank details and so this had not been paid.
The Council’s response to Ms B’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaints procedure in November 2020 confirms that: it took over the management of Mr C’s finances in 2019 when it became his registered appointee. It says this action was part of an action plan put in place following a safeguarding investigation which identified the managements of Mr C’s finances as being of significant concern; Ms B had been Mr C’s appointee before then but his utility bills were not paid during that time and this resulted in him being disconnected and those companies initiating recovery proceedings against him; accepted that at one point Ms B had paid for food for Mr C when he ran out of funds and that the Council had agreed to reimburse her for this but that Ms B had not provided her bank details so this reimbursement had not been made; it arranged a prepaid card for Mr C which was topped up weekly to enable Mr C to buy everyday essentials; it had liaised with Mr C’s social landlord to ensure that it had access to funds to ensure that Mr C’s gas supply payment was topped up and he had a supply of gas to his property for hearting and hot water.
Is the Council at fault and has this caused injustice?
There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of Mr C’s benefits with regard to his utility bills or ensuring he has access to funds for food and other living expenses. The Council decided to became Mr C’s appointee following safeguarding concerns and a best interests decision. There is no evidence that these processes were not properly followed. There is no evidence either that the Council has failed to properly manage Mr C’s finances since it became his appointee and it has worked with Mr C’s housing provider to ensure that his utility bills are paid, that his arrears are addressed and he has access to his money for living expenses. Mr C’s rent is paid by housing benefit direct to his housing provider.
Final decision
There is no fault by the Council with regard to this complaint that the Council failed to ensure that Mr C’s utility bills, rent and personal expenses were properly handled since the Council became Mr C’s appointee in late 2019.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman