Summary: Ms C complains about the lack of support and information she received from the Council when she had to deal with the estate of her recently deceased son. The Ombudsman found that some information Ms C received was confusing. There was also a delay by the Council in finalising her son’s account and dealing with her complaint. The Council has already apologised to Ms C and offered her a financial remedy of £200. It has also decided to develop an information leaflet for bereaved families. I am satisfied with the actions the Council has taken.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms C, complains on behalf of herself and her (late) son, whom I shall call Mr X. Ms C complains that:
• A Council officer who initially handled her case, lacked empathy and did not provide her with enough support.
• The Council did not provide clear information about her son’s finances
• The Council unreasonably delayed producing a final account after she obtained probate
• There was an unreasonable delay by the Council in responding to her complaints at stage one and two.
• There are indications the Council has mismanaged her son’s finances and that considerable sums of money have gone missing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word 'fault' to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I considered the information I received from Ms C and the Council. I shared a copy of my draft decision statement with Ms C and the Council and considered any comments I received, before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms C’s son was living in supported accommodation provided through the Council, before he passed away in February 2018. The DWP appointed the Council to manage his benefits. Ms C’s complaint is about the lack of support and the information she received from the Council, following his death.
6. Ms C says the council officer who handled her case lacked empathy. Furthermore, she did not provide her with enough information and support. More specifically:
• The officer told her that any funeral costs up to £4,000 would be covered by her son’s estate. However, later the officer told the funeral director that this does not include the cost of funeral cars. As such, she had to pay £275 herself, even though these costs fell within the £4,000 limit.
• The officer was cold and lacked compassion, during the two visits she made to see her at the office in February and April 2018.
• The officer posted the probate form to her on 29 March 2018, but ‘failed’ to include the IHT2015 form that has to be posted with the probate form. She completed the form incorrectly and asked the officer to help her complete it, which she did.
• The officer gave her a breakdown of what was left of her son’s finances, but the breakdown was very confusing.
7. The Council has said that:
• It is sorry that it did not tell her what funeral costs she could not include in the £4,000. It is the Council’s policy that only certain things related to a funeral can be paid for from the client’s estate. Cars are not included. The officer subsequently confirmed this to the funeral director.
• It is not possible to establish what exactly occurred during the contact Ms C had with the officer as Ms C and the officer’s version of events differ significantly in certain areas.
• The officer says she explained Probate to Ms C. Probate is when a person has to apply for the legal right to deal with someone’s property, money and possessions (their ‘estate’) when they die. At the time of the above, Ms C did not have Probate yet. Before Probate is Granted to an individual, the Council can only provide limited information about a person’s estate to that individual. The officer explained that if Ms C needed further support with the Probate application, she should contact a solicitor or Islington Law Centre.
• The officer sent Ms C a copy of the Probate Form on 29 March 2018. It is not Council policy to send out any of the other IHT forms. The forms that a client needs to complete to get Probate differ based on individual circumstances. It not the role of council officers to make these distinctions. Any of the other forms can be obtained from the Probate Office, for which the officer included the contact details on 29 March 2018.
• The officer provided a copy to Ms C of a financial statement relating to her son’s estate. It was a provisional document, which was not dated and unsigned. The Council has acknowledged it would have been better if the officer had not provided this to Ms C at the time, because it was incomplete. It has apologised that the document was therefore confusing. The Council says the officer tried to be helpful and explained various transactions to Ms C. She provided whatever information she felt she could provide, within the constraints of the Data Protection Act. Once Ms C got Grant of Probate, the Council could have a much more open dialogue with her
• The officer had booked a private room for her meeting with Ms C in April 2018. However, the meeting over ran and they had to leave the room and continue the meeting outside. The Council told Ms C it was sorry if she felt upset or inconvenienced by that interruption. At the end of the conversation, the officer referred Ms C to Citizen's advice or a solicitor for independent advice. The officer’s intention was to help Ms C, as she wanted to understand her son's estate.
• The Council told Ms C it would review how it provides information to bereaved families about what needs to be done with regards to the administration of estates. It would also retrain staff where needed.
8. I asked the Council for a copy of all the records the officer made of her meetings and discussions with Ms C etc. However, there was a lack of detail with regards to the meetings she had with Ms C. The Council has told me it has reminded the team of the importance to keep appropriate records.
9. Based on the information I have seen, Ms C found the process involved quite complex. The Council has said that:
• Following initial contact with bereaved families, it provides information about probate in writing. This was done on 29 March 2019. Before this, the officer had explained Probate to Ms C to the best of her knowledge.
• It intends, to produce a customer information leaflet, to include advice relating to funeral costs and grants, probate and administering the estate, as well as useful contact points for further advice and information. Due to staff resourcing and operational issues this is not yet in place. The department aims to produce a leaflet by 1 December 2019.
• In the meantime, staff have been reminded to give clear advice to relatives about funeral costs and administration of the estate.

Assessment

10. There are clearly differing versions of what took place in the exchanges between Ms C and the council officer. As such, I am unable to come to a view to what extent, if at all, the Council lacked compassion in its contacts with her.
11. From the information I have seen, the Council provided an appropriate level of support to Ms C. However, it failed to provide some information about the cost of funerals, for which it has already apologised. The Council will also develop a leaflet to ensure that families are provided with all the relevant information at the earliest opportunity.
12. Furthermore, the Council acknowledged it should have waited until Ms C had probate, before providing her with a full and complete breakdown of her son’s finances. It has apologised for providing an incomplete and confusing breakdown in the interim.
13. The Council has also reminded its staff of the importance of appropriate record keeping.

Ms C’s complaint about unreasonable delays

14. Ms C complained there had been an unreasonable delay by the Council with providing:
• A final account, once she obtained and provided proof of Probate on 1 October 2018
• A response to her complaint(s)
15. Ms C went to the Islington Law Centre (ILC) who wrote a letter to the Council’s Client Financial Affairs team on 13 June 2018. In the letter, the ILC said:
• It wanted to support Ms C with appealing two alleged benefits overpayments. As such, the ILC asked for related records and letters.
• It wanted a copy of the council’s complaints procedure, because Ms C had some other complaints as well.
16. When Ms C did not receive a response, the ILC sent a follow up letter to the Council’s CEO on 5 July 2018.
17. The officer said that Ms C had asked for further financial information about her son, in her letter of 13 June. The officer said she had just returned from leave and forgot to call the ILC to explain the Council would not be able to provide this until Ms C would receive Probate. The Council responded to Ms C’s letter on 24 July 2018, in which it apologised for the delay. The Council has acknowledged its response was outside its corporate target time of 21 days.
18. Ms C made a complaint on 18 July 2018 about the actions of the council officer. She received a response to her complaint on 10 August, which was not a delay. Ms C told the Council on 12 August that she was unhappy with the outcome of her complaint. The Council carried out a stage one review and responded to her on 23 August 2018. It said that if she remained unhappy with the response, she could write to the Council’s CEO.
19. Ms C also wrote to the Council in August 2018 to appeal against the housing benefit overpayment decision. The Council subsequently decided to review two housing benefits overpayment decisions. However, it took until 18 December 2018 before the Council made its final decision, which was that it would write off the housing benefits overpayment of £3,316.94.
20. Ms C referred her complaint to the Ombudsman in November 2018. However, the Council confirmed that Ms C had not yet completed its complaint procedure, because she had not yet written to the Chief Executive (stage two). The Ombudsman asked the Council on 19 December 2018, to carry out stage two. However, there was a delay until February 2019 with initiating this, due to a high volume of Chief Executive review requests. Ms C received her final response on 27 March 2019.
21. During the investigation, the investigator asked the Council’s Benefits Service to look again at another benefit overpayment decision that had been made with regards to Mr X’s benefit claim.
22. The delay in completing the two benefit overpayment reviews, resulted in a delay in providing Ms Y with a finalised statement. She received this on 3 April 2019.
23. As such, the Council has offered Ms C a payment of £200 as a financial remedy for the above faults, the distress these caused her, and the time and trouble she had to spend pursuing this case.
24. Based on the information I have seen; it appears that Ms C has still some specific questions with regards to the final statement she has received about her son’s account. As such, the Council has agreed to meet with Ms C to discuss these. However, Ms C has said that she would prefer a response in writing because: she is a pensioner, grieving for her son and she would feel very intimidated and uncomfortable with such a meeting. While I understand why Ms C may have some reservations, my view is that a meeting will be an appropriate and efficient way to discuss and clarify any remaining issues. If Ms C wants, she will be able to ask a friend or other person to support her at the meeting.

Assessment

25. The delay in finalising Mr X’s account, happened due to a delay in completing two benefit reviews. This was fault. The Council has already apologised for this.
26. There was also an unreasonable delay (three weeks) in responding to the ILC letter of 5 July 2018 and completing Ms C’s stage two complaint response (ten weeks).

Agreed action

27. The Council has already apologised to Ms C for the faults identified above and the distress these have caused her. It has also offered her a financial remedy of £200.
28. The Council has spoken to relevant staff and decided to develop an information leaflet for bereaved families.
29. I found this was an appropriate remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

30. For reasons explained above, I found that while there was fault by the Council, I was satisfied with the actions the Council identified to remedy this. I have therefore completed my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

31. I decided not to investigate Ms C’s complaint that, according to her, there are indications the Council has mismanaged her son’s finances and that considerable sums of money have gone missing. If Ms C believes this, she should first make a complaint to the Council, in which she should specify on what basis she has come to this view. If she is subsequently unhappy with the way the Council has investigated this concern, she can make a complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman