Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay issuing a refund for overpayment of adult social care fees. This is because the Council has accepted its fault, apologised for the impact on the complainant, and acted to prevent future failures. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would add anything to the Council’s investigation or achieve anything further. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken to resolve the complaint.

The complaint

1. Ms C says the Council delayed settling her relative’s direct payment account after their death. Ms C says she regularly telephoned the Council, and it told her it would resolve in the next seven days but never did. Ms C had to formally complain, and the Council delayed responding to that also. The Council has now made the payment, a year later than expected.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused an outstanding significant injustice to the person who complained 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms C’s relative received direct payments from the Council during their lifetime to arrange their adult social care support. After the death, the Council needed to settle the account and refund any overpayment the person had paid for their care. The Council aims to do this within twelve weeks. A human error meant the Council failed to input the case onto its system for one year, causing a one-year delay in Ms C receiving the refund. There is no evidence to suggest this is a systemic failure, it appears to be a one-off error in Ms C’s case.
7. I understand the delay would be frustrating for Ms C, and she says she had unnecessary time and trouble chasing the Council. The Council has apologised to Ms C for its delay, lack of responses and failures in customer care. The Council said it will address the issues with relevant staff and give training where required.
8. The refund was a relatively small amount. Ms C has not shown the delay in receiving the money caused any financial hardship or significant impact. The amount of interest lost over the year would not be a significant sum to justify an investigation.
9. Ms C is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with her complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms C’s complaint because we could not add to the Council’s investigation. I am satisfied with the actions the Council has taken to accept its failures, acknowledge the impact on Ms C, and act to prevent future problems. Further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve anything further, so is not justified.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman