Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council delayed issuing a carer’s direct payment. The Council has apologised and taken steps to prevent a recurrence of the matter. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council delayed issuing his direct payment. He said the Council agreed the payment at the start of April, but he had not received the payment eight weeks later. Mr X said this error had happened previously. He said he contacted an Officer at the Council about the delay, but they did not respond to his message.
2. Mr X the Council’s actions had caused him distress. He wants the Council to pay him £300 to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

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. In its complaint response the Council apologised to Mr X for the delay in processing the direct payment. It said it was not deliberate but because it did not process his support plan in a timely manner. The Council said it would process the payment in the next few weeks. It also apologised the Officer Mr X contacted did not respond to his message but said the Officer did not receive it.
7. The Council confirmed it had taken steps to prevent a repat of the delay. That included:
• Completing Mr X’s annual review earlier the following year, so it could process the payment earlier. It said that would also ensure there would be no impact on the grant provision for the next year.
• Placing a reminder on the Council’s systems, to prevent Mr X having to contact the Council for his annual carer’s review.
8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The Council has apologised for the delay in issuing the direct payment and taken action to prevent a recurrence of the issue. I am satisfied that remedies any injustice caused. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
9. Mr X has provided evidence to the Ombudsman of a text he sent to the Council Officer. Although they did not respond to that text message, we would not consider that a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement. Mr X complained to the Council shortly after sending that text and the Council responded to his concerns.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman