Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in providing clarity regarding its financial assessment. The Council has agreed to our recommendation to share information with Mr X about the steps it has taken to improve its service, and we are satisfied this is appropriate to remedy the injustice he experienced.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council handled his queries, and his subsequent complaint, about his mother’s (Mrs Y’s) financial assessment. It delayed answering his questions about terminology used in the financial assessment, only doing so when he made a formal complaint. Mr X went to unnecessary time and trouble. The Council has not provided Mr X evidence of its steps to implement service improvements, despite his request to see this. He wants it to do so.

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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

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 Council assessed Mr X’s mother’s (Mrs Y’s) finances, and Mr X queried its calculations. It had included notional income, which is income a person is not receiving but would be entitled to receive if they applied for it. Mr X said he would apply for Mrs Y to receive all she was entitled to, but he did not think the Council should include these amounts in its figures until Mrs Y began receiving them.
6. The Council explained the Care Act 2014 allowed it to include notional income in its calculations, and provided Mr X a copy of relevant Local Authority Circular guidance that explained this. Mr X asked the Council for clarity about this as he believed, based on the information he had seen, that the Council was accusing Mrs Y of depriving herself of income to avoid costs for care. However, that is just one of the circumstances in which councils might apply a notional figure.
7. The Council delayed properly explaining this for one month. It then provided Mr X links to the relevant parts of the Care Act 2014 which provided sufficient clarity. Mr X says he went to unnecessary time and trouble because of this. I viewed the communications between Mr X and the Council, and on this occasion the time and trouble Mr X went to in order to seek clarity was not substantial. However, the delay in the Council providing sufficient clarity caused Mr X one month of frustration, stress and inconvenience.
8. The Council apologised to Mr X and told him it had taken steps to improve its service to avoid the same mistake happening again. It told him it had shared an internal reminder with relevant members of staff, about communication and the procedures they should follow in such circumstances. Mr X was not satisfied with this and asked it for evidence of the service improvements. However, the Council declined to share this with him.
9. Mr X told us that what he wanted to achieve by complaining was simply to obtain this information. I agree that in the circumstances this, along with the apology the Council gave Mr X, would be sufficient to remedy the injustice its actions caused.
10. I have seen the evidence of the action the Council has taken, and it is in the process of considering what it could add to the template letters it sends out when sharing the outcome of financial assessments, to help provide clarity on this issue. I am satisfied it is acting appropriately and I do not intend to make any additional recommendations for service improvements.
11. Mr X has since made Freedom of Information requests to the Council, asking it for data about the financial assessments it carries out. He is not satisfied the Council addressed his requests sufficiently. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is best placed to consider complaints about organisations’ data practices, and as the information Mr X requested is not information we require to decide his complaint, it is open to him to contact the ICO if he wishes to pursue this further.

Back to top

Agreed action

12. The Council has agreed to share the evidence of its service improvements with Mr X within one month of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are satisfied with the action the Council proposes to take.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman