Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with a change to her Direct Payments. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because we cannot usefully add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and there is no worthwhile outcome to be achieved by an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council failed to notify her of a change in the way it paid her Direct Payments to take into account the end of the tax year. This caused inconvenience and a change to how she paid her carer for the period in question.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I spoke to Ms X and reviewed the information she provided.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms X receives Direct Payments from the Council, paid every four weeks. She has had the same carer for 9 years who she pays in advance for the 9 hours care she receives each week.
5. In March 2019 Ms B noticed she had a larger payment than normal on her Direct Payments pre-payment card. She called the Council who explained a change had been made to fall in line with the new tax year beginning on 1 April 2019 which meant it had made a five-week payment with a further five week wait before payment would revert back to the four weekly payment.
6. Unhappy that she had not been consulted or notified of the change in advance, and because of the difficulties the change had caused her, Ms X complained to the Council.
7. It responded by apologising to her and acknowledging the change would have caused her difficulties because of how she pays her carer. It explained the Direct Payments Team had been notified of the change at short notice and it had not had enough time to notify her until a week after the 5-week payment had been made to her card. The Council offered Ms X assistance if she needed help to get back on track with aligning her Direct Payments with payments to her carer which it noted should be paid in arrears.

Assessment

8. I understand Ms X was dissatisfied with the lack of consultation and notice and that the change had an impact on how she paid her carer for the period in question. However, the Council explained why the one-off change was made and apologised to her. An investigation by the Ombudsman could not add to that already carried out by the Council and there is no useful remedy to be sought in the circumstances of this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because we cannot usefully add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and there is no worthwhile outcome to be achieved by an investigation.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman