Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions under an appointeeship. This is because there is not enough significant injustice caused by the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains on behalf of her deceased brother, Mr X, that the Council accrued a debt of over £20,000 while acting under an appointeeship to manage his finances. The Council did not pay debt until after Mr X’s death despite Mr X having the funds from his bank accounts available to them.
2. Mrs Y says this has caused the family distress and upset as her brother was otherwise never in debt to anyone, especially considering the funds were available to pay the debt in full before his death. She feels strongly that this should not have happened and that the Council let her brother down.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I spoke to Mrs Y and considered the information provided about the complaint. Mrs Y had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X’s finances have been managed by the Council under an appointeeship for several years. During his lifetime, the Council acted to manage his finances, including making investments and was responsible for paying any bills or costs Mr X accrued. Mr X then died in March 2019. The Council spoke to Mrs Y in May 2020. It explained a debt of over £20,000 needed to be paid from Mr X’s estate for the costs of Mr X’s care. In the same conversation it confirmed there were enough funds to pay this from one of the investments it had made during Mr X’s lifetime.
6. Mrs Y was upset the Council had not paid the debt before her brother had died and had allowed it to accrue over several years. She thinks the Council should have made payments each time a bill was issued so her brother would never ben considered “in debt”. She feels the Council’s poor handling of her brother’s affairs has damaged his reputation and memory, causing her and her family distress.
7. Mrs Y complained to the Council in May 2020. The Council responded in November, saying the investment, which had been due to pay the bill accrued when it matured in 2014, had been overlooked. It apologised but said Mr X had not been financially impact, for example by interest charges, at any point. Mrs Y then approached the Ombudsman.

Analysis

8. While Mrs Y was shocked when the Council told her about the amount to be paid, she was told at the same time money was available for this to be paid from the estate. Consequently, she did not need to worry about the debt or how it might be paid.
9. Mr X’s estate did not suffer any loss because of non-payment, such as interest on the debt or late payment charges.
10. While Mrs Y clearly feels strongly about this issue and has been distressed and upset by the Council allowing a debt to accrue in her brother’s name, there is not enough significant injustice to warrant our investigation.
11. Further, Mrs Y has told us she is seeking an investigation into how the debt was left unpaid and would like the Council to apologise and accept accountability. However, the Council has accepted its “oversight”, in not paying the debt when the investment it had made for Mr X matured in 2014. It has checked this did not disadvantage Mr X or his estate and has apologised for this. As the Council has therefore already given the remedy Mrs Y is seeking, it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s own investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough significant injustice caused by the alleged fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman