Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how a Council communicated with Mr X and handled his complaints, which included support for a deputyship application and payment of fees for his late father’s care. The Council has already accepted fault and provided a suitable remedy. Investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve more.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the London Borough of Harrow (the Council) and how it handled issues relating to the care of his father, Mr Y, at a nursing home in 2021.
2. In particular, Mr X complains about poor communication by social workers, excessive delays in dealing with correspondence and lack of support to apply for deputyship. He also complains about poor complaint handling by the Council.
3. Because of the Council’s failings, Mr X says that he has experienced a significant amount of wasted time and stress, and unnecessary costs associated with a deputyship application.
4. Mr X would like the Council to recognise the impact of their actions on him. He wants the Council to carry out staff training about deputyships, reimburse him for unnecessary costs and further engagement to resolve the outstanding debt.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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:
• It is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code. I also considered relevant law and guidance.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr Y was admitted to a care home in April 2021. The Council advised Mr X the care fees would be approximately £900 per week. It also said that because Mr Y could not understand matters relating to his care or finances, Mr X would need to apply for deputyship if he wished to deal with his father’s affairs.
9. The Council reviewed Mr X with health colleagues in July 2023. They decided that Mr Y needed 1:1 care. Mr X was not involved in this review and the Council did not tell him about the extra costs for 1:1 care.
10. Mr X applied for deputyship but the courts refused this because there was no mental capacity assessment from a relevant professional.
11. Mr Y died in December 2021. The Council sent Mr X an invoice in February 2022. This was for more than double the amount Mr X was expecting, because it included charges for 1:1 care which he was unaware of. Mr X wrote to the Council to question the charges but did not get a response. The Council sent Mr X a further invoice in March 2023. Mr X complained to the Council.
12. The Council accepted fault with communication around the care review and fees. It agreed to waive the 1:1 fees of £14,688. I do not consider the Ombudsmen could achieve more by investigating this part of the complaint.
13. This meant £13,165.79 was still payable from Mr Y’s estate. As Mr X was executor of his father’s estate, it was his legal responsibility to pay any debts left by Mr Y. Mr X says the Council has “stonewalled” him whenever he has tried to discuss repayment. While there clearly were difficulties with the Council engaging with Mr X initially, the Council’s complaint response in August 2023 offered to discuss this. It also provided contact details of the Linkworker who could do this. I understand from Mr X that he has not yet contacted the Linkworker. I do not consider investigation is likely to achieve more. Once Mr X contacts the Council, if he cannot come agree a way forward with the Council, this would need to be considered as a new complaint.
14. With regards to deputyship, Mr X says this cost him £370 and a lot of time to complete, including having to find three witnesses. The courts then refused this application because he says a social worker would not help him. Applying for deputyship was something Mr X would have needed if he wished to deal with Mr Y’s affairs after he could not do this himself. The refusal of the application had no impact because Mr Y had died when the court shared the decision. There were therefore no further costs to re-apply and deputyship was no longer an issue.
15. I appreciate Mr X found the process stressful and if he had problems getting support from the social worker, this is unlikely to have helped. However, the Council has confirmed there are no records of any discussions with Mr X about this. Given this happened more than two years ago, it is also unlikely the social worker would recall the discussion in detail. It would therefore be difficult to find out what happened with any certainty.
16. There is no legal requirement for a social worker to complete a capacity assessment for a deputyship application. However, I consider there would be indication of fault by the Council if a social worker refused to help or engage without explaining their reasoning, or failed to record an important discussion. However, I can see the Council has apologised to Mr X for his experience and confirmed it will complete a review of its processes. This should ensure it has clear guidelines for social workers about expectations for assisting with deputyship applications. It also said it would monitor effective case recording so that issues with poor record keeping can be addressed. I do not consider investigation is likely to establish any further information or achieve a different outcome.
17. The Council has acknowledged delays with its correspondence with Mr X and that its complaint responses lacked detail. It offered Mr X £250 in recognition of the stress this caused. Mr X considers this should be higher. However, taking into account the extent of the fault and injustice, I consider this is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. Investigation is therefore unlikely to achieve more.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the council has already accepted fault and provided a remedy. Investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman