Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a care package the Council put in place following Mrs Q’s stay in hospital. This is because it is unlikely further investigation by us will lead to a different outcome. And the Information Commissioner is better placed to consider Mrs Q’s concerns about a data breach.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Mrs Q, complained that the London Borough of Wandsworth charged her for a care package she did not want or need following a stay in hospital. She also complained that the Officer who assessed her told her about his own health problems. And she is concerned the Council accessed her DWP records without her knowledge or consent when it financially assessed her.

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 further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mrs Q provided. I considered the information the Council provided. I invited Mrs Q to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. Mrs Q is disabled. She has had a care package in place for many years.
6. In 2019 Mrs Q was hospitalised following a heart attack. A Council officer, Officer A, visited Mrs Q in hospital to assess her for a care package for her return home. Mrs Q told Officer A she did not want or need a care package because she already had one. Despite this, he arranged for carers to visit her twice a day when she returned home. Officer A also told Mrs Q about his own health problems when he visited her in hospital.
7. Mrs Q contacted the Council and it stopped the care package it had arranged. However, it charged her for the care package for four days while she was in hospital and for a further 41 days after she left hospital. Mrs Q received invoices from the Council for the care package after it did a financial assessment using her DWP records.
8. Mrs Q complained to the Council. She was unhappy the Council had provided care she did not want or need and then charged her for it. She was also unhappy that Officer A had inappropriately discussed his health problems with her. And she was concerned the Council had accessed her DWP records without her knowledge or consent in order to do a financial assessment.
9. The Council wrote to Mrs Q and apologised for her experiences with Adult Social Care. It accepted she had not consented to the care package it had arranged and waived the outstanding fees. It apologised for Officer A inappropriately sharing his health problems with her. But it said it was allowed to access her DWP records to do a financial assessment, so there had been no data breach. Officer A wrote to Mrs Q separately to apologise.
10. Mrs Q remains unhappy with the Council’s actions and does not accept it has the right to access her DWP records. She said it should never have charged her for a care package she did not want or need.

Assessment

11. We will not investigate this complaint.
12. When Mrs Q complained to the Council it accepted she had not agreed to the care package it put in place. It has apologised for this, apologised for Officer A’s actions, and waived the outstanding fees. Officer A has also apologised to Mrs Q. I recognise Mrs Q thinks the Council should never have charged her. But the Council’s response is appropriate for her complaint, and it is unlikely further investigation by us will lead to a different outcome.
13. If Mrs Q believes the Council should not have accessed her DWP records she may take the matter to the Information Commissioner. It is better placed to decide whether there was a data breach. So I think it would be reasonable for Mrs Q to take this part of her complaint to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint for the reasons given in the Assessment.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman