Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to respond to a complaint via its contractual arrangement’s dispute resolution process rather than its complaints procedure. The Council remedied any injustice caused when it investigated the issues. It is unlikely, on balance, we could achieve more.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains the Council failed to investigate her complaint, made false representations and failed to carry out its statutory duty in a timely manner. Miss B says the Council has not provided a complaint reference number for complaints she submitted in January and March 2025. She says it has not provided a response or set out a process for resolution or escalation to the Ombudsman. Miss B wants the Council to formally investigate the conduct of staff working within its commissioning team.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss B is Manager of a care home which has a contract in place with the Council to provide services. She contacted the Council in January and March 2025 about unpaid fees owed by a resident the Council was appointee for. An appointee is an individual or organisation authorised by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) or equivalent body to manage the benefit payments and financial affairs of someone unable to do so themselves.
6. Miss B said the charge remained payable by the Council regardless of arrangements it had in place with other public bodies. She referred to relevant legislation and said the Council needed to make the payment within 30 days and should include interest in line with the relevant law. In March she asked the Council to treat her correspondence as a formal complaint.
7. The Council responded in November and said it had decided Miss B’s correspondence did not meet the criteria for its complaint procedures. It said it was responding under the Dispute Resolution Process (DRP) set out in the contract it had in place with the care home.
8. The Council upheld Miss B’s complaint regarding the issue of not responding to her formal complaint. It accepted its officers had missed the opportunity to deal with the matter in line with the DRP. It apologised and said it would improve by sharing learning with its officers.
9. In relation to the payment the Council accepted it should have told the care home to submit an invoice for the unpaid fees, but it had failed to do so. It said it would review its processes and confirmed it had resolved the payment issue with the care home. The Council also said it would review the DRP to decide whether any improvements could be made such as including a reference number once the process is started.
10. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint because the remedy provided by the Council during its consideration of the complaint is reasonable remedy for the injustice caused. The Council told Miss B how it would improve and the Council’s actions appear to be as a direct result of the complaint she made. It is unlikely we could achieve more.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint because the Council provided a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused when it considered and responded to her complaint. There are no wider public interest issues to justify our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman