• The complaint
• The Ombudsman’s role and powers
• How I considered this complaint
• What I found
• Agreed action
• Final decision

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr X complains that by only offering him £250, the Council has failed to properly recognise the problems it caused by failing to accept his mother’s eligibility for COVID-19 funding. Mr X has been put to significant time and trouble and caused avoidable distress by the Council’s action. It needs to pay him £600 to reflect this.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complains that by only offering him £250, the Council has failed to properly recognise the problems it caused by failing to accept his mother’s eligibility for COVID-19 funding.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
4. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have:
   • considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
   • discussed the complaint with Mr X;
   • considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies; and
   • invited comments on a draft of this statement from Mr X and the Council, for me to consider before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. Mr X’s mother, Mrs Y, used to live in another borough, where she owned her own home. As she could not manage in her own home, Mr X arranged for her to move to rented property in Oldham in December 2019. This was intended as a temporary move while her own home was either adapted to meet her needs or sold so she could buy somewhere suitable for them.
7. Mrs Y went into hospital a few times in early 2020. When she first returned to the rented accommodation, she received six weeks of free reablement support provided by the Council. Mr X supplemented this by staying with her for periods of time and moved in with her in April. Mrs Y received further support from the Council. In May Mrs Y went into hospital having had a stroke. When she returned to the rented accommodation, she continued to receive support provided by the Council. Initially the Council charged for this support but in July, after Mrs Y had moved to a care home, it confirmed the support she had received in the rented accommodation would be paid for by COVID-19 funding.
8. Mrs Y moved to a care home in July as it was no longer possible for her to live independently. She sold her home.
9. The Council told Mr X it would no longer use COVID-19 money to fund his mother’s care and support. This meant Mrs Y had to fund her own care, as she had capital over £23,250 from the sale of her home. The Council said it would not continue the COVID-19 funding because it had not been involved in the decision to move Mrs Y to a care home.
10. Mr X questioned the Council’s decision to end the COVID-19 funding, pointing out that it had been aware of the plan to move Mrs Y to a care home. He continued to do this for over a year, but without success. Mr X says he dealt with about 25 different officers and spent 100s of hours pursuing his concerns. During this time his wife was being treated for Stage 4 cancer. Mr X says it was very distressing not being able to provide her with all the support she needed because of his dispute with the Council.
11. In November 2021 Mr X made a formal complaint. The Council met him to discuss his complaint on 1 December. When it replied to his complaint on 7 December, it said:
    • despite assessing Mrs Y as needing 24-hour care and knowing Mr X was looking for a care home, it had not clearly documented the planned move to residential care or communicated this to finance colleagues (who decided Mrs Y’s placement was not eligible for COVID-19 funding);
    • it apologised and said it would refund Mrs Y for the cost of her care home placement up to 31 March 2021;
    • it would remind officers of the need to complete timely assessments, record key information and communicate clearly with finance colleagues;
    • it apologised for the failure to clearly explain the need to reallocate Mrs Y’s case to different social workers;
    • it apologised for the delay in sending Mrs Y’s assessment following a visit in July 2020 and for inaccuracies in the assessment;
    • it would have been helpful to make Mr X aware of potential funding from NHS continuing healthcare during initial conversations;
    • it would have been helpful for another member of the social care team to have contacted Mr X when her social worker was unavailable from 22 July to 20 August 2020;
    • it apologised for any delays in responding to Mr X between September and October 2020, and the failure to record all contact with him;
    • it would have been helpful to meet Mr X at an earlier stage to discuss his concerns;
    • it apologised for sending a letter in February 2021 which contained conflicting information about COVID-19 funding; and
    • it accepted it had sent letters to Mrs Y at an address she had left months before.
12. As Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response, he asked for further clarification. When the Council replied in February 2022, it said:
    • it agreed to recompense Mr X for his time and trouble in pursuing the complaint and offered to pay him £250;
    • it had not been possible to hold face-to-face meetings when reassessing Mr Y because of COVID-19 but it would have been helpful to hold a virtual meeting;
    • significant failings should have been addressed much earlier and meetings should have been held to ensure his concerns were properly investigated; and
    • it apologised for not sending Mr X a copy of the COVID-19 discharge guidance sooner.

Is there evidence of fault by the Council which caused injustice?

13. There is no dispute over the fact the Council has put Mr X to time and trouble in pursing his concerns. The Council has accepted this by apologising to him and offering to pay him £250. The issue for me to consider is whether this is enough.
14. Under our published Guidance on good practice: remedies, a payment for time and trouble is unlikely to be less than £100 or more than £300. However, we may also recommend a payment for distress, which is often a moderate sum of between £100 and £300, but may be up to £1,000 if severe or prolonged and in exceptional circumstances more than this.
15. In addition to the time and trouble Mr X has been put to in pursuing his concerns over 18 months, he has also been caused avoidable distress. The length of time Mr X had to pursue his concerns could have been avoided if officers had made better records and communicated with each other more accurately. It could also have been significantly reduced if officers had engaged more constructively with him at an earlier stages. He has been caused avoidable distress because the time he spent battling with the Council reduced the amount of time he had to support his wife during a particularly difficult period for them both.

Back to top

Agreed action

16. I recommended the Council:
    • within four weeks increases its payment to Mr X to £600, to reflect the significant time and trouble it has put him to and the avoidable distress it has caused.
17. The Council has agreed to do this and will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I have completed my investigation on the basis there has been fault by the Council causing injustice which warrants an increased remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page