Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s delay in responding to his complaint about his late father’s, Mr C’s care charges. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused Mr B a significant enough injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation and where he is not considering the substantive matter he will not usually consider how a council has considered the complaint. That is the case here.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council’s delay in providing him with a response to his concerns about his late father’s care charges caused unnecessary distress and led to his mother being unable to budget effectively for two years. Mr B says the Council’s failure to communicate should be investigated by the Ombudsman as this is the same matter as the complaints he investigated previously.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information and documentation Mr B provided. I sent Mr B a copy of my draft decision and considered his comments on it.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B complains that his queries regarding his late father’s care charges were not responded to by the Council for nine months. Mr B says this led to uncertainty about what he needed to pay.
5. The Council apologised for the delay. It explained this was because of staffing issues at the time and disputed Mr B’s view it was due to incompetence. The Council explained the staffing issues have since been addressed and correspondence is dealt with on average within 23 working days.
6. Mr B says the Ombudsman should investigate this matter because it is the same as a previous complaint he made in 2018 about delay in assessing his late father’s estate for care charges and issuing an invoice. The Ombudsman recommended a financial remedy and apology in that case and was satisfied the Council had completed the agreed remedy in November 2018.
7. Mr B asked the Council to clarify the accounts in December 2018. The Council acknowledged its delay perpetuated uncertainty but said it did not pursue recovery of the charges until after it had responded in August. While Mr B had had some uncertainty about the actual amount of the charges, he knew his late father would have to pay for his care so neither Mr B nor his late father’s estate has suffered a significant enough injustice from the delay to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. The Ombudsman does not usually investigate the way a council has responded to a complaint if he is not investigating the substantive matter.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused Mr B a significant enough injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation and where he is not considering the substantive matter he will not usually consider how a council has considered the complaint. That is the case here.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman