Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging the late Mrs C’s estate for the legal fees incurred as a result of a deferred payment agreement. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. We are satisfied an apology and review of processes remedies any injustice to Ms B caused by the delay in the Council responding to her complaint.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained about the legal fees incurred as a result of a charge on her late mother’s, Mrs C’s property. Ms B says because of the delay in the Council requesting the legal fees, she has discharged Mrs C’s estate to her beneficiaries in accordance with her role as Executor, and consequently there is no money left in the account to pay the legal fees the Council says Mrs C’s estate owes. In addition Ms B complains about the Councill’s delay in responding to her complaint and the Council sending invoices for amounts already paid.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council acknowledged the delay in responding to Ms B’s complaint and apologised. It explained the outstanding £111 for legal costs to remove the deferred payment agreement (DPA) could only be calculated once redemption of the property had taken place. It says this is explained in the DPA associated costs guidance which was shared with Ms B at the time the DPA was agreed. This information was also passed onto Ms B’s solicitors in May 2021. The Council responded to Ms B’s solicitors in August 2021 querying the £111 legal costs. It advised Ms B’s solicitors following the redemption of the property on 7 May it invoiced Ms B for the legal fees separately on 26 May as it had previously advised it would. The Council says it sent the invoice to the address it had on record for Ms B unaware she had moved. The Council acknowledged it had her email address but explained it sends invoices through the post.
6. The Council explained it sent three invoices on 26 May, two of which had been paid, and the invoice for the legal fees. The Council apologised for any confusion caused by sending invoices for amounts already paid and said its Finance team are looking at how to improve communications and the information it provides. The Council says it will consider Ms B’s complaint as part of its review.
7. Further investigation could not add to the Council’s response or make a finding of the kind Ms B wants. There is not enough evidence of fault with the Council’s actions regarding invoicing for legal charges warranting an investigation by the Ombudsman. The Council has apologised for the delay in the considering Ms B’s complaint and for any confusion incurred by receiving invoices already paid alongside the invoice for the legal fees. It has explained its Finance team is reviewing its processes. We are satisfied there is no unremedied injustice warranting an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because it we are satisfied the actions taken by the Council remedies the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman