Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged debt owing to the Council for a disabled facilities grant given thirty years ago. The passage of time makes it difficult to investigate and reach a safe conclusion. However, based on the information that is available it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council failed to keep any financial records or seek payment over the last thirty years for a loan it gave his relatives, Mr & Mrs C. Mr B questions whether the debt is rightly due and felt forced to pay it from Mr C’s estate. This caused him stress and frustration. Mr B wants the Council to repay the estate and give him a financial payment for his distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who has died or who cannot authorise someone to act for them. The complaint may be made by:

• their personal representative (if they have one), or
• someone we consider to be suitable.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(2), as amended)

3. Mr & Mrs C have died; Mr B is the personal representative of the estate.
4. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
5. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Thirty years ago, the Council gave a disabled facilities grant to Mr & Mrs C to make changes to their property. The Council placed a legal charge on Mr & Mrs C’s property, meaning the loan would be repaid to the Council when the house was sold.
9. Mr and Mrs C have both died. Mr B is the executor of Mr C’s estate. When Mr B came to sell the house last year, he became aware of the debt to the Council.
10. Mr B questions why the Council never sent any correspondence about the debt over the last thirty years. This would be an unnecessary administrative burden on the Council’s resource, to regularly make contact on every case where it holds a charge on a property. It would not be normal process to expect it to have done this, so it is not evidence of fault.
11. Where so much time has passed since the fault complained of it can make it difficult to carry out a fair investigation. It becomes difficult to establish the facts with reasonable confidence. In this case Mr & Mrs C have both died so we cannot ask them about the repayment of the loan.
12. Mr B believes the loan would have been paid off but can provide no evidence to support that. The Council cannot find any records to show the loan was paid and says the fact the charge remains on the property is evidence the debt was still due.
13. It is more likely than not the Council’s position is correct, and the debt was due. There was no reason for the Council to contact the family about the debt until the house was sold, at which point the debt became repayable under the terms of the loan agreement. Without any evidence to the contrary, it is unlikely the Ombudsman could make a finding of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because the events happened so long ago it makes it hard to reach a safe conclusion. But based on the information we do have it is unlikely the Ombudsman would make a finding of fault over the request to repay the loan or that no contact was made about the loan over the last thirty years.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman