Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Care Provider managed his direct debit payment for his care fees. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Care Provider and the injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Care Provider poorly managed his direct debit payment for his care fees. He said the matter caused him distress. He wants the Care Provider to provide him with an apology.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Care Provider.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X said the Care Provider debited his account for care fees two days before the expected date. Mr X said he was short of money and was not able to purchase food and drink. The Care Provider said its contract and direct debit mandate stated it would debit fees from Mr X’s account every four weeks.
6. We will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find sufficient evidence of fault by the Care Provider as its contract and direct debit mandate states it will debit money from Mr X’s account every four weeks and not on a specific date each month.
7. Mr X cancelled his direct debit with the Care Provider. He wanted to pay the Care Provider every month via telephone instead. The Care Provider explained it was not possible to take fees this way. It offered to visit him in his home to explain the contract and set up another direct debit with him. Mr X declined this. Mr X said the Care Provider was forcing him into setting up another direct debit.
8. We are also unlikely to find fault with the Care Provider on this matter. It explained to Mr X it was not able to take a monthly payment via telephone and offered to provide him with support. This was appropriate.
9. The Care Provider issued Mr X a seven-day notice to end his care contract. It said his care would continue for the remainder of the week. Mr X did not want further care. He said care workers attempted to enter his home in the final week.
10. We will also not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint as the Care Provider was acting in line with its contract to provide him with a final week of care and so there is insufficient evidence of fault. The injustice is also not significant enough to warrant an investigation. In any case, in response to Mr X’s complaint, although the Care Provider did not uphold his complaint, it cleared Mr X’s final bill as a goodwill gesture to recognise any distress Mr X may have experienced which was appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Care Provider and the injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman