Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about the way the Council has handled her complaints. This is because there is no ongoing injustice to either Ms A or Mr B warranting an Ombudsman investigation. Where the substantive matters do not themselves warrant investigation; the Ombudsman will not normally consider how the Council has responded to a complaint about them. That is the case here.

The complaint

1. Ms A says the Council did not send invoices for her uncle’s, Mr B’s, contribution towards his residential care for six months and did not respond when she complained in February and April. Ms A says there is systemic failure in the Council’s accounting department and wants the Ombudsman to investigate further.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I discussed the concerns with Ms A and considered the information and documentation she provided. I sent Ms A a copy of my draft decision for comment.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms A manages Mr B’s finances for him. Ms A says she had not received any invoices for six months and complained to the Council in February when she received an invoice for £4149.77 referring to non-payment of previous invoices. She asked the Council to explain how it had calculated this amount and the sum of £896.48 it had invoiced Mr B.
5. Ms A complained in February and April 2019 but did not receive a response. Ms A complained in July and the Council investigated her concerns. It said it had sent four weekly invoices but could not explain why Ms A had not received them. It explained the breakdown of the invoices, Mr B’s weekly contribution and how the charges had accumulated. It apologised it had not responded to Ms A’s complaints in February and April and upheld this element of her complaint.
6. The Council has explained the calculations and weekly contributions, and there is no ongoing injustice from this point warranting further investigation.
7. Ms A says the Council sent the invoices to three different address, including Mr B’s care home and a previous address. The Council says it cannot say why Ms A did not receive the invoices for six months and has apologised for failing to respond to her initial concerns. While Ms A is concerned there is a systemic failure in the Council’s accounting department, there is no evidence to support this view. Whilst there has been a delay in the Council responding to Ms A’s complaints that she did not receive the invoices, the Ombudsman could not say this is a systemic failure warranting further investigation.
8. The Council has apologised for its failure to respond to Ms A’s initial complaints and Ms A has confirmed she now has copies of the invoices relating to Mr B’s care charges. The Ombudsman could achieve no more. While Ms A is remains unhappy with the way the Council has considered her complaints and has unanswered questions about why the Council sent the invoices to three separate address, the Ombudsman will not investigate this point. Where the substantive matters do not themselves warrant investigation, the Ombudsman will not normally consider how the Council has responded to a complaint about them. That is the case here.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no ongoing injustice to either Ms A or Mr B warranting an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman