Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss A’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with her complaint about her financial contribution to her care costs. This is because it is unlikely we could significantly add to the Council’s investigation or that further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss A, complained about the way the Council dealt with her complaint about her financial contribution to her care costs. Miss A told us the Council had caused her mental distress.

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 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 have considered the information Miss A provided, her comments on my draft decision and the Council’s responses to her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. Miss A told us she did not really want to make a complaint to the Ombudsman, but she wanted to make us aware of a lack of scrutiny, clarity and effective processes between the Council’s social services and finance teams. Miss A says the Council had told her she needed to contribute 50% of her Disability Living Allowance care component to her care package. Miss A had previously received financial support from the Independent Living Fund (ILF). She told us, when the ILF closed in June 2015, the Council failed to inform her she no longer had to contribute. Miss A says it was not until the Council’s finance team carried out a financial assessment early in 2019 it discovered she had been continuing to contribute. She says the Council had not recorded this officially, apart from the transactions into her bank account.
5. Following her complaint, and with the support of an advocate, Miss A told us she eventually received all monies she was seeking to recover. But she says another vulnerable person may not be able to cope with what happened to her or have access to the good advocacy that she had. She would like the Ombudsman to investigate to see if the Council has tightened its procedures and checks between its teams in case the same thing is happening to others.
6. In its correspondence with Miss A the Council has acknowledged where things had gone wrong. It has apologised for its delay in responding to Miss A, in resolving the matter and for its misunderstandings. If we uphold a complaint about a council’s administration, we can recommend that the council takes steps to prevent similar problems happening again. The Council gave an assurance to Miss A it was in the process of reviewing anyone formerly receiving ILF funding to make certain nobody else has continued to make any contribution the Council has not financially assessed them to make. The Council has told us it has now completed its review and found Miss A’s case to be a unique one. The Council has recognised it has lessons to learn from what happened to Miss A. A council senior officer told Miss A’s advocate he was reviewing the direct payments finance review process to make roles and responsibilities clear. He assured Miss A’s advocate the Council has measures in place to question unexplained credits and this would be part of the Council’s checklist in future financial reviews.
7. Given the Council’s willingness to learn from what happened in this case and the action it has taken, it is unlikely we could significantly add to its investigation or that further investigation would lead to a different outcome. In those circumstances there is insufficient justification for us to start an investigation.
8. We would not investigate a standalone complaint from Miss A about the Council’s complaint handling when we are not investigating the issue which gave rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could significantly add to the Council’s investigation or that further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman