Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to direct payments she had received in the past. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because the events complained about happened too long ago to be investigated now and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms B, says the Council was not clear about what she could use her direct payments for and disputes the amount it has sought to recover from her when it found they had been used incorrectly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. 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

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Ms B and the Council. I gave Ms B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms B has a number of health issues and up until 2015 she received direct payments from the Council to enable her to arrange and pay for her own care.
6. In 2012, following the use of a wrong card and an overspend, the Council explained to her in writing about how to properly use the direct payments. During the annual reviews of Ms B’s care package, no issues were raised other than the need for her to submit regular receipts.
7. In September 2015 the Council reviewed the use of Ms B’s direct payments and it was agreed with Ms B during a meeting at her home that her support would be transferred onto a managed budget rather than continue with direct payments.  The Council’s records show this decision was made because direct payment monies were wrongly being used for items, other than for personal care and support, such as petrol and food shopping, and to relieve the stress which Ms B now said she was experiencing regarding her responsibilities in connection with the direct payments.
8. The Council identified approximately £2000 of incorrectly spent direct payments. As a gesture of good will, it reduced the amount she had to pay back to £1400 because of an initial administrative error it had made concerning receipts Ms B had provided.
9. In 2017 Ms B complained to the Council disputing the amount it said she owed. The Council responded to her but did not change its view. It concluded by advising her of her right to take her complaint to the Ombudsman and explained how to do this. Since this time, Ms B has been paying off the arrears by way of a monthly payment.
10. Ms B has now brought her complaint to the Ombudsman and has explained why, due to health issues, she had felt unable to do so earlier.

Assessment

11. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. One of these restrictions is highlighted at paragraph 2 and relates to the length of time the complainant has known about the matters of which they complain.
12. The Council’s records show it explained to Ms B in writing about the appropriate use of direct payments back in 2012 and that no further issues concerning their use were raised until 2015 when they were changed to a managed budget.
13. Ms B knew at least as early as 2017 about the Council’s decision to recover the monies incorrectly spent and she made a complaint at this time. The Council properly addressed her complaint and signposted her to the Ombudsman.
14. While I note Ms B’s explanation of why she did not complain to us until two years later, I do not consider there are grounds sufficient to warrant exercising discretion to investigate the complaint now.
15. There is evidence from the Council to show Ms B was advised about the appropriate use of the direct payments and, moreover, the items which were bought incorrectly using direct payments were items which would have been purchased regardless of which funds were used for them.

Back to top

Final decision

16. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the events complained about happened too long ago to be investigated now and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman