Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint further. Mr X did not suffer material injustice as a result of the alleged use by the Council of his signature and the Council has offered appropriate remedies for the remaining matters.

The complaint

1. Mr X (as I shall call him) says the Council used his signature without his permission on a financial assessment form for his disabled son Mr Y. He says the Council continued to invoice him for a service which Mr Y had long since stopped using. He also complains about the poor service he received from some officers and the long delay in investigating his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by the Council and Mr X. I spoke to Mr X. Both the Council and Mr X had the opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement and I considered their comments before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

5. Councils should have clear procedures to deal with social care complaints. Regulations and guidance say they should investigate and resolve complaints quickly and efficiently. A single stage procedure should be enough. The council should include in its complaint response:

• how it considered the complaint;
• the conclusions reached about the complaint, including any required remedy; and
• whether it is satisfied all necessary action has been or will be taken by the organisations involved; and
• details of the complainant’s right to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

(Local Authority Social Services and National Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations 2009)

What happened

6. Mr Y is Mr and Mrs X’s disabled adult son. He lives at home with his parents. Until March 2020 he attended a day centre on a weekly basis.
7. In November 2019, a welfare rights officer and a social worker visited Mr Y with Mr X in attendance to complete a financial assessment for Mr Y in respect of his attendance at the day centre.
8. The day centre closed during the Covid lockdown period after Mr Y had attended a few times. When it reopened it had changed in nature and was no longer suitable to meet Mr Y’s needs. The Council continued to check on Mr Y’s wellbeing.

The complaint

9. In January 2022 Mr X wrote to the Council. He said Mr Y had no inclination to return to a day centre service but said he was still being invoiced for the service. He also complained that his own signature had been ‘forged’ on a financial assessment form.
10. In March 2022 an officer wrote to Mr X. He said he had suspended the invoices. He also said that due to the serious nature of Mr X’s allegation about the use of his signature, the allegation was lodged as a formal complaint for investigation.
11. In June 2022 the Council wrote again to Mr X after some investigation into his allegation. It said the finance officer “advised that she would not and has not signed any finance forms on behalf of any client, (the officer) states that she would write 'unable to sign' or 'refused to sign' if a service user or representative was not willing/able to sign a form.”
12. Mr X did not accept the explanation and contacted the Council in July with more information about the context in which be believed the signature had been used. As a result the Council wrote to him again and said it would investigate further.
13. In August the Council wrote to Mr X saying there would be a delay in appointing an investigating officer. It was not until March 2023, after Mr X had asked the Council several times, that an investigating officer was finally appointed.
14. The investigating officer reported in October 2023. She said it was impossible to tell from the detailed evidence she had examined that Mr X’s signature had been forged. She added that the circumstances showed it was highly unlikely this has been done.
15. In respect of Mr X’s second complaint, about the continued invoicing, she upheld the complaint. She said “invoices continued to be sent in error as business support did not update their records that day care at … Day Centre was suspended until November 2022.”
16. The Investigating Officer said there had been “significant delays” in dealing with the complaint. She said there had been poor communication by the former complaints officer, who had left the Council without telling Mr X he was leaving or who would complete the investigation. She said there was also poor communication by the finance department which had continued to issue invoices causing additional anxiety. She recommended a financial remedy in respect of the upheld complaint.
17. The Council wrote to Mr X offering £ 125 each to himself and Mr Y. Mr X said the offer was derisory and insulting.

Analysis

18. The Council was wrong to delay the investigation of Mr X’s complaint so long. It has acknowledged that, apologised and offered a sum in recognition of the distress caused.
19. The Council was also at fault in continuing to send invoices because it had not updated its systems. Again it has acknowledged that, apologised and offered a sum in recognition of the distress caused.
20. The investigating officer examined all the records in connection with Mr X’s allegation that his signature had been forged. She could not reach any conclusion that had taken place. It is not our role to reinvestigate that allegation but to consider how the Council investigated. In my view there was a thorough investigation and the Ombudsman would not achieve more by further investigation now.
21. In addition it is not possible to say that Mr X suffered any material injustice in consequence of his belief that his signature had been forged.

Back to top

Agreed action

22. Within one month of my final decision the Council should write to Mr X with a formal offer of the sums previously offered to him and to Mr Y.
23. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I find there was fault on the part of the Council causing some injustice to Mr X, which the completion of the recommendation at paragraph 22 will remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman