Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council communicated care costs. The claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of his late father, Mr Y’s, estate. Mr X complains the Council gave him wrong information about how much it owed Mr Y as credit for his care. Mr X also complains that the Council wrongly sent the updated invoice to his sister even though he is the estate’s executor. Mr X says this cause him avoidable stress. He wants the Council to acknowledge its administrative errors and honour the original credit amount.

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 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 continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X wrote to the Council for clarity on what the remaining balance was for care Mr Y had received. The Council told Mr X that Mr Y’s estate was £135.31 in credit. A week later, the Council revised and reduced the credit amount to £73.81.
6. Mr X asked the Council to explain the credit reduction. The Council has done so, in line with its policy, and we are unlikely to find fault with the Council for coming to this credit amount. As such, the injustice is that, for a week, Mr X expected to receive £135.31 rather than £73.81.
7. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council says it sent the invoice to Mr X’s sister because she was Mr Y’s recorded next of kin. The Council apologised to Mr X for any distress this may have cause. It has now updated its records, and future correspondence will be addressed to Mr Y.
8. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures.
9. While I recognise the frustration and disappointment the invoice revisions and correspondence may have caused Mr X, I do not consider there has been significant enough personal injustice to warrant the Ombudsman devoting time and public money to investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint on behalf of Mr Y’s estate because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman