Summary: We have ended our investigation into Mr X’s complaints as any further investigation is unlikely to have a worthwhile outcome, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking. In addition, Mr X could have complained to us earlier if he was unhappy with the way the Council calculated care costs.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of his father, Mr Y, that:
• The Council has overcharged him for care received.
• A Council officer was rude and unprofessional over the telephone when he contacted the Council about the debt.
• The Council used aggressive tactics to pursue the debt.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• the matters complained about occurred over 12 months ago and it was reasonable for a complainant or representative to bring them to our attention sooner.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the complaint from Mr X and the information he provided. I sent a draft of this decision to Mr X and the Council and considered comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

4. In early 2017 the Council contacted Mr Y about a debt he owed the Council for care costs. This was from 2012 to 2015.
5. Mr X responded to the Council disputing the charges as he believed the Council had overcharged Mr Y. Mr X said he provided the Council with his views on the debt in March 2017 and the Council told him it would review the charges.
6. In August 2018 Mr X and Mr Y received a demand for payment for over £7,000 from a debt recovery agency for non-payment of care charges. Mr X contacted the Council and spoke to an officer who he said refused to discuss the debt with him as the matter was closed and with a debt collection agency. Mr X said the Council officer terminated the telephone call. Mr X also wrote to the Council and said the debt amount was wrong. The Council confirmed it had not received any money on account for the care charges but was willing to discuss the matter further with Mr X.
7. Mr X told the Council he believed the correct amount of the debt was £4,547 as his father did not receive care for some of the period the debt related to.
8. In August 2018 the Council told Mr X if he paid £3,500 on account it would put the enforcement agents on hold and discuss how he can progress the balance. The Council wrote to the Mr X on 19 August 2018 and said it would accept £4,547 in full payment of the debt, as Mr X had suggested. The Council told Mr X it would take legal action to recover the money if he did not pay.
9. In September 2019 Mr X wrote to the Council to complain about the way he was treated by a Council officer during a telephone call in August 2018. Mr X was unhappy the Council did not have a recording of this call.
10. Mr X paid the council £4,547 in September 2019. In November 2019 Mr X contacted the Council and said he believed the debt was wrong and he paid too much. This was after Mr X contacted the Council’s solicitors about the matter. Mr X believed some credits had not been applied to Mr Y’s account and this would reduce the debt to just over £2,000.
11. In November 2019 the Council told Mr X it had closed the case. The Council told Mr X there was no further appeal or escalation and he should seek independent advice if he disagreed with the amount paid.
12. In 2020 Mr X continued to contact the Council about the debt he paid for Mr Y’s care costs. Mr X made a subject access request for information concerning this. He also told the Council it never responded to his complaint about how he was treated by a Council officer over the telephone.
13. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint about the way he was treated by a Council officer in September 2020. The Council apologised to Mr X if he was spoken to in an unhelpful or impolite manner. The Council said it could not verify what was said on the call. The Council said it discussed the matter internally and any feed back to the officer would be addressed through management processes.
14. Mr X asked the Council to consider his complaint at the next stage. Mr X said the Council officer was trying to force hm to deal with the debt recovery company, not the Council.
15. The Council provided its final response in November 2020. The Council said Mr X’s concerns were addressed with the relevant manager and the Council would provide supervision or training if necessary. The Council acknowledged the conversation Mr X had with the officer could have been more positive and apologised that Mr X was unhappy with the conversation. The Council confirmed Mr X’s feedback about this was raised at senior management level.
16. Mr X remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman. Mr X raised three issues:
• The Council incorrectly calculated Mr Y’s care charges and as a result he overpaid.
• The Council had not adequately looked into the conduct of the officer who was inappropriate over the telephone.
• The Council’s Collections Team used aggressive tactics to try to get him to pay a debt which was incorrect.

Analysis

17. We have decided to end our investigation into Mr X’s complaints for the following reasons:
18. In relation to his complaint about the Council officer which has been through the Council’s complaints procedure, we cannot see nor do we have a record of what was said. Mr X has in his complaint form asked that the individual officer provide him with a written apology and speak directly to him to explain himself. This is not a remedy we can achieve for Mr X. When looking at the actions of individual Council officers we would treat these as being actions of the Council. The Council has apologised to Mr X and provided feedback to senior management about the way Mr X was dealt with. I consider this reasonable. I cannot add anything further to the Council’s investigation or achieve the remedy Mr X is seeking.
19. Mr X also raised issues about the aggressive tactics the Council used to get him to pay the debt and for initially claiming the debt was over £7,000. This complaint has not been through the Council’s complaints procedure and relates to matters which occurred over three years ago. In addition, I cannot see what significant injustice this has caused Mr X. The Council did not start any enforcement action against Mr X and he has not had to pay any professional fees as a result of enforcement action.
20. In relation to the overpayment of care charges Mr X paid the Council in September 2019 but then started to dispute the amount shortly after paying. The Council told Mr X he had no further right to escalate or appeal this in November 2019. It would have been appropriate for Mr X to have complained to us at this stage. I can see no reason why he could not have brought the complaint to us sooner. In addition, the amount Mr X is disputing is an amount he previously offered to pay the Council to settle the debt. The debt relates to payments from 2012 to 2015 and it is unlikely we can reach a safe conclusion about the overpayment so long after the relevant events.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have ended our investigation into Mr X’s complaints.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman