Summary: The Ombudsman does not propose to investigate this complaint about the refund of a double payment. This is because further investigation could not add anything to the Council’s response or achieve her desired outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mrs L, says that the Council:
• Took a double payment for care provision;
• Delayed in refunding it;
• Did not communicate properly about the matter; and
• Has refused to investigate the complaint at stage two of its procedures.

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’. 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 could add to any previous investigation by the Council, 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

4. I considered the information provided by Mrs L and I have sent her a draft decision for her comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs L makes the payments to the Council for the care fees for her neighbour’s wife as a favour to him. In October 2019 a double payment was made. Mrs L complained to the Council, and the money was refunded a week later.
6. Mrs L is unhappy that the double payment was taken, but also says that the Council delayed in repaying it, and she had to go to her bank to get the refund. She further complains that the Council’s communications were unhelpful and inaccurate. She feels that the Council should offer her financial compensation for what happened.
7. The Council said in its response that it admits two payments were taken, but could offer no explanation for this. It said that the refund was made within seven days of it being aware of the issue, and that it was already arranging for it to happen when Mrs L asked her bank to recover it. It also admitted some fault and confusion around its communications with Mrs L, and has apologised for that.
8. There is no evidence to show how the double payment happened. The Council appears to consider that Mrs L could have pressed “submit” twice, but Mrs L is certain she did not do this, and that an error was made by the Council. In any case, the Council has apologised for any shortcomings in its handling of the matter, and the money was refunded within a short period of time, so there is no lasting injustice to Mrs L.
9. I also find no fault in the Council’s refusal to take the complaint to stage two of its procedures, as there is nothing that further investigation could add.
10. I appreciate that Mrs L would feel aggrieved that an action that she undertook out of kindness to another has caused her worry and inconvenience. However, the injustice was limited and short lived, so I do not agree that the it warrants financial compensation.
11. In summary, I will not investigate this complaint as there is nothing that further investigation could add to that of the Council, and I cannot achieve the desired outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. Subject to any comments Mrs L might make, my view is that the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because further investigation could not add anything to the Council’s response or achieve her desired outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman