London Borough of Croydon (19 012 408)

Category : Adult care services > Other

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 06 Jan 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint that she has been misled and deliberately given false information by the Council. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused either Mrs A, or her mother Mrs B, a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. He is satisfied an apology remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

  1. Ms A says the Council failed to provide correct information about her mother’s, Mrs B’s respite care, and deliberately gave false information about charges. Ms A says she wants the Council to accept and book respite care well in advance. Ms A says she has been put to a lot of inconvenience in sorting out difficulties and says it should pay damages and compensation to both her and to Mrs B.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
  • it is unlikely we would find fault, or
  • the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
  • the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
  • it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
  • it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
  • we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I discussed the concerns with Ms A and considered the information and documentation she and the Council provided. I sent Ms A a copy of my draft decision for comment.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Ms A complained to the Council in June about the delay in confirming respite care for Mrs B.
  2. The Council responded in July. It explained respite placements are not arranged until a week before the planned date and confirmed funding for Mrs B’s respite placement had been agreed on 21 June. It advised Ms A should arrange the placement directly with the agreed providers. Ms A says she was concerned the placement would not go ahead because the Council failed to return hers and the placement providers telephone calls.
  3. Ms A says the Council initially charged Mrs B the full cost of her placement but then decided to reduce the cost by 50%. The Ombudsman could not say either Ms A or Mrs B have suffered any injustice because of this.
  4. Ms A says Mrs B required transport to and from the respite placement and was initially told by the Council it was not its responsibility to provide this. Ms A says she was put to a lot of inconvenience contacting medical providers to try to arrange transport, which eventually the Council agreed to fund.
  5. The Council’s response to Ms A’s complaint says transport to and from respite placements is usually paid for by the individual or family members, however it can support with transport arrangements if needed but explained this is discretionary.
  6. The Council agreed the funding for Mrs B’s respite placement and transport. Mrs B had respite in July and transport to and from the placement. The Council apologised for the inconvenience Ms A and Mrs B experienced and the Ombudsman is satisfied an apology remedies the injustice. While Ms A has incurred some inconvenience following up placement and transport arrangements, the Ombudsman could not say Mrs A or Mrs B has suffered a significant enough injustice warranting further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council’s actions have not caused either Mrs A, or her mother Mrs B, a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. He is satisfied an apology remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings