Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council decision to recover money in his sister’s Ms C’s, direct payment account. This is because there is no unremedied injustice warranting an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council’s decision to take back £3318.48 from his sister’s Ms C’s direct payment account, which is managed by his mother, Mrs D, has caused his family unnecessary stress and worry. Mr B says the Council failed to provide adequate record keeping and statements and should have advised Mrs D sooner of its mistakes so she could pay Ms C’s carers the money in the account which he says is rightly theirs. Mr B says the Council did not comply with its own policy about consulting with the authorised person and should pay the £3318.48 back into the account so it can be paid to Ms C’s carers.

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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information and documentation Mr B and the Council provided. I sent Mr B a copy of my draft decision and discussed his comments on it with him.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B says the Council did not consult Mrs D about recovering monies from the direct payment account she manages for Ms C and would have used the money to pay her carers an appropriate wage.
5. The Council apologised it did not notify Mrs D before taking the money from the account but said it did consult the Managed Account Provider who confirmed all invoices had been paid up to date. The Council explained it left eight weeks of funds in the account to pay for ongoing care. It agreed Ms C’s carer should have an hourly rate increase from £8.21 to £9 explaining it does not set a rate of pay but the hourly rate should be at least the National Minimum Wage and allow for NI, tax, holidays, sickness and Managed Account fees to be paid. The Council said it will backdate Ms C’s carers hourly rate of £9 to April but said there was no reason for it to put £3318.48 of council money back into the account.
6. The Council has apologised it did not tell Mrs D of the decision to take back the surplus funds and the Ombudsman is satisfied this remedies the injustice caused to Mrs D. However the Council did consult with the account provider who had confirmed all invoices were up to date, so there is no reason for the Council to put back the surplus funds it removed.

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is no unremedied injustice for the Ombudsman to investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman