Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about their dealings with the Council over a direct payment account for their disabled son. The complaint was closed because the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve anything worthwhile for Mr and Mrs X through further investigation of the matter.

The complaint

1. I refer to the complainants here as Mr and Mrs X. Mr and Mrs X complain about their dealings with the Council over a direct payment account for their disabled son. Mr and Mrs X say:
• A social worker did not tell them she had not received a tax receipt for their son’s direct payment account.
• The direct payments team manager was asked if a receipt would be accepted but there was no reply.
• Mrs X asked the Council to contact HMRC about the tax demand but no one explained the Council could not do this.
• They asked for their son’s one off payments to be allowed to accrue but there was no response.
• Mrs X was offered meetings with the social worker but a director of social care services refused recorded meetings. The director said it was not appropriate for the case officer to attend a meeting.
• The team manager made an untrue statement that her son’s account is always in excess and that he always has tax to pay.
• Their son received letters demanding a return of excess funds while the complaint to the Council was under consideration. The final letter was threatening.
2. Mr and Mrs X say their family has been put under a lot of stress. Mrs X says she has been passed from person to person in dealing with the complaint. Mrs X says she spent 18 months chasing the matter and it has taken a lot of time and energy.
3. Mrs X wants the Council to accept her bank statement as a tax receipt. She wants the amount credited to her son’s account. She questions why her son’s one off payments are not allowed to accrue in the account. She wants an apology from the team manager for not contacting her with an explanation on the tax receipt; for not clarifying the Council’s calculations; and for not explaining why one off payments cannot accrue in her son’s account.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint,
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

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

5. 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, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the complaint and background documents provided by Mrs X and the Council. I telephoned Mrs X to discuss the complaint. I sent an initial decision statement to Mr and Mrs X and the Council and considered the comments of both sides on it.

Back to top

What I found

Law and Guidance

7. The relevant rules for complaints about social care are contained in a set of regulations called the Local Authority, Social Services and National Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009.

Back to top

What happened here

8. The Council appointed an independent investigator to investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint under the statutory complaint procedure. The investigation began in January 2021 and concluded in February 2021. The independent investigator agreed eight heads of complaint with Mr and Mrs X. These heads of complaint included the matters complained of here although the wording is different.
9. The investigator upheld 4 of the complaints. In terms of the complaint about a lack of clarity over the Council’s calculation of any surplus in their son’s account, the investigating officer sought and obtained explanations from the Council.
10. On the matter of the tax payment to HMRC, the investigator considered officers’ handling of the bank statement Mrs X had sent to the Council as proof of the payment made to HMRC. The investigator explained why the Council still required proof any payment was prompted by a tax demand directly linked to Mr and Mrs X’s son’s account. The investigator explained Mrs X would have to request information from HMRC rather than the Council for data protection reasons.
11. The investigator considered the matter of letters sent to Mr and Mrs X on recovery of the surplus funds. The investigator upheld the complaint.
12. The investigator considered the matter of a credit which was to be paid to Mr and Mrs X’s son’s account in the following financial year. The investigator found the tax bill had not been fully accepted by the Council because it had not seen a statement or tax demand from HMRC.
13. The investigator offered a remedy involving an apology to Mr and Mrs X for the upheld elements of the complaint as well as service improvements.
14. Mr and Mrs X remain unhappy and so complained to the Ombudsman.

Finding

15. Although Mr and Mrs X can complain to the Ombudsman because they are unhappy with the result or with the way the complaint was dealt with, the Ombudsman cannot look at the merits of decisions which have been properly made. Where a council has investigated a complaint under the 2009 regulations utilising an independent investigation, we would not normally reinvestigate the complaint unless we consider that investigation was flawed.
16. That is not the case here. I find the independent investigator took account of the relevant evidence. The investigation report is detailed and reasoned in its findings. I do not find evidence of flaws in the process or that the investigation was not robust.
17. The Ombudsman cannot add anything to this investigation or achieve anything worthwhile for Mr and Mrs X.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I discontinued this investigation because there is nothing worthwhile that can be achieved through pursuit of the matter by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman