Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s communication with the complainant regarding payment of a deferred payment agreement account and delayed removal of the charge on his mother’s property. This is because it is unlikely we would now add to the Council’s investigation or achieve a significantly different outcome for him.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr C, complained that there was fault in the way the Council communicated with him regarding payment of a deferred payment agreement account and it delayed removal of the charge on his mother’s property.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s responses to his complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. Mr C has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered his comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Shortly after Mr C had informed the Council his mother had passed away, he received a call from a council officer to tell him payment of over £49,000 was due. This was for his mother’s residential care charges. The Council said interest would start to occur if the amount due was not paid. Mr C had not at that point received the Council’s invoice.
7. Mr C paid the Council’s invoice promptly.
8. When the Council responded to Mr C’s complaint about this issue, it apologised for poor service. It said it had reminded all members of its financial assessment team of the importance of dealing with all its customers in a polite and respectful manner.
9. Mr C subsequently made another complaint about the length of time it was taking for the charge on his mother’s property to be removed. It meant he had been unable to do anything with the property. Mr C told us the delay and the lack of communication about the issue had caused him significant stress and financial hardship.
10. The Council has accepted the length of time it has taken for removal of the property charge is unacceptable and the level of communication and service Mr C received was not to the expected standard. The Council apologised for the poor service he had experienced. It said, while this was an isolated incident, it had learnt lessons from his experience. The Council contacted Mr C again following his complaint to us. The Council said its previous suggestion that the Land Registry Office should have removed the charge appeared to have been premature and for that it apologised. The Council said it did appear there had been an unacceptable elapse of time before it had sent the necessary papers to the Land Registry. But the Council said it had now done this. It apologised again and offered Mr C a payment of £150.
11. Mr C told us he is still no nearer to organising probate and selling his mother’s property. He does not want others to go through a similar experience. He does not accept a payment of £150 would compensate for the Council’s delay after he had paid the amount due promptly.
12. Our primary purpose when investigating a complaint is to decide whether there has been fault by a Council. In this case the Council has already accepted it has been at fault. When someone has suffered because of fault, we focus on restoring any services that have been denied and recommending practical steps to put things right. When we recommend a payment, it is often a modest, symbolic amount. The courts are the appropriate body for people to use if their primary goal is to seek an award of compensation.
13. The Council has told Mr C it has sent the papers to the Land Registry for the removal of the charge. That means it was then for the Land Registry to deal with the matter. The Council has agreed to take steps to reduce the possibility of similar complaints being made in the future and it has offered a small payment to Mr C. So, if we investigated Mr C’s complaint it is unlikely we would now add to the Council’s investigation or achieve a significantly different outcome for him.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint because it is unlikely we would now add to the Council’s investigation or achieve a significantly different outcome for him.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman