Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council advised him wrongly when he requested a benefits check as part of his carer’s assessment, that he was unable to contact Adult Social Care and that the Council delayed in responding to his complaint. There is not enough significant injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that when he contacted the Council’s Revenues and Benefits Department he was wrongly told it was not responsible for carers’ benefits. He then said he was directed to Adult Social Care but he was unable to get through by telephone. Mr X says that when he contacted the Council to report this, it failed to properly deal with his complaint.
2. Mr X says that as a result he has not been able to access the support he needs to enable him to care for his parents and he has been financially disadvantaged.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X wanted a carer’s assessment. A charity told him that the Council would carry this out and he would need a benefits check as part of the assessment. Mr X called the Council and spoke to someone in the Revenue and Benefits Department. They told him the Council was not responsible for carer’s benefits. Mr X complained.
8. The Council responded promptly and asked if it could call Mr X to clarify his complaint. Mr X declined and so the Council responded on the information it had available and advised Mr X to contact Adult Social Care.
9. Mr X says he tried several times over the next three days but could not get through. He complained again and asked the Council if he could come to the Ombudsman but it did not reply. Around four months later, Mr X complained to us.
10. We asked the Council to respond to Mr X’s complaint. It did so around three months later. The Council apologised that Mr X was unhappy with its previous complaints response but said he had declined to speak to officers about it and so they were unable to determine exactly what his complaint was or how to put it right. It said it was likely there had been a misunderstanding when Mr X called the Revenue and Benefits Department. This was because the Council did not administer carer’s benefits, but this was not the same as a ‘benefits check’ which formed part of a carer’s assessment.
11. The Council also apologised for Mr X’s trouble in trying to get through to Adult Social Care. It said it would arrange for the department to call him directly if he wished in order to resolve any issues and arrange a carer’s assessment. It also signposted Mr X to the correct part of its website for more information. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to us.
12. We will not investigate this complaint. It appears there was a misunderstanding when Mr X called the benefits department but he was soon correctly advised. Mr X also likely found it frustrating when he could not get through to Adult Social Care over the course of a few days. However, neither of these caused a significant enough injustice to investigate. And when we decide we will not investigate the substantive matters raised by a complainant, we will not investigate complaints about complaint procedures.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough significant injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman