Summary: There was fault in the Council’s and the care home’s management of Mr C’s finances and there was fault in the Council’s safeguarding enquiry into the care home’s actions. This meant that Mr C’s finances were not properly monitored. The Council has agreed to apologise, provide a small symbolic financial remedy and review the safeguarding enquiry.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains on behalf of her brother, Mr C, who has sadly died. Mr C was an adult with physical and learning disabilities who did not have the mental capacity to make the complaint.
2. Mr C lived at Marston Court care home in Leicester.
3. Mrs B’s complaint is:
• The Council and the Home failed to properly manage Mr C’s finances.
• The Council failed to carry out a proper safeguarding enquiry into the Home’s management of the finances.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have investigated complaints relating to events from October 2017 onwards. I have exercised discretion to investigate complaints that are more than a year old. I did this because I accepted that Mrs B did not become aware of the complaint until she became deputy for Mr C’s financial affairs and property in September 2020 and because the complaint was investigated as a safeguarding enquiry which did not complete until May 2022.
5. Paragraph 124 explains why I have not investigated complaints before that date.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. 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)
8. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
9. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

10. I have considered the evidence provided by Mrs B, the Home and the Council, the relevant law, guidance and policies and both sides’ comments on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law, guidance and policies

Care Act 2014

11. The Care Act 2014, the Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014 (updated 2017) and the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 set out the Council’s duties towards adults who require care and support and its powers to charge.

Financial assessment

12. Councils must carry out a financial assessment if they decide to charge for care and support. This will assess the person’s capital and income.
13. Generally speaking, if a person’s capital is over £23,250, they will have to pay for their own care.
14. Residents in a care home will also contribute most of their income toward the costs of their care. However, the disability living allowance (DLA) – mobility is disregarded in the calculation of the contribution.
15. A local authority must leave the person with a specified amount of their own income so that the person has money to spend on personal items such as clothes and other items that are not part of their care. This is known as the personal expenses allowance (PEA). Local authorities have discretion to apply a higher income allowance.

Safeguarding

16. Section 42 of the Care Act 2014 says the local authority should start a safeguarding enquiry if an adult in its area:
• has needs for care and support;
• is experiencing, or at risk of, abuse or neglect and
• as a result of those care and support needs is unable to protect themselves from either the risk of, or the experience of abuse or neglect.
17. Abuse includes financial abuse such as theft or fraud.

The UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

18. The UK GDPR says an organisation’s retention policy should list the types of information an organisation holds, what it uses it for and for how long they intend to keep it.
19. The UK GDPR does not dictate how long an organisation should keep personal data. It says it is up to each organisation to decide this.

Council’s policies

Policy for managing finances

20. The Council has a policy which sets out what it should do when it is managing a vulnerable person’s finances.
21. The social care worker makes a best interest decision on the amount of any personal needs allowance (PNA) that is to be paid to the person
22. The policy also says:
• The statutory review carried out by review workers should always include a review of the service user’s finances regardless of who is managing their finances.
23. Some of the main points for checking at the review include:
• If a service user is living in residential care, the officer should check that the service user is receiving their Personal Needs Allowance (PNA). The officer should verify and see evidence that the service user is receiving and benefiting from their PNA.
• Consider whether any money is required to spend on the service user’s needs and if so, arrange for this to happen.
• Check if the total monies are in excess of £16,000 (currently Income Support Upper limit). If so, advise the Finance Team who will consider whether a request needs to be made to the Court of Protection to appoint a Deputy.
• Check if the DLA Mobility component is being used appropriately.
• Check if total monies are in excess of the full cost capital threshold, (currently £21,500).

Home’s policies

Supporting residents’ finances policy (before June 2020)

24. The Home’s finance policy said that, where a resident had difficulties dealing with their own finances, the Home would offer support and keep records and details of the money that was spent.

Supporting service user’s finances policy (after June 2020)

25. The Home reviewed the policy in June 2020 and the revised policy said:
• Each person’s money should be held separately and securely.
• Where the person has an appointee, the Home should not hold bankbooks or bank cards and access to money should be through the allocated appointee.
• When we hold bankcards at the request of the person, money should only be withdrawn when the person is present and should only be withdrawn from over the counter at the bank/ building society. ATMs should never be used for withdrawals staff assist with.
• On the withdrawal of money a receipt should be obtained that should be attached to the person’s financial records as evidence of the withdrawal.
• All expenditure must have a receipt and must be logged on the person’s financial records immediately or as soon as feasibly possible.
• Managers/ or delegated person should complete a weekly balance check for all those people who are supported with their finances and a full monthly finance audit reporting to the Board any discrepancies through the IRF system.

What happened

26. I have summarised events insofar as they are relevant to Mrs B’s complaint. I have used the figures from the most recent assessment of Mr C’s finances.
27. Mr C moved into the Home in 2007. The Council funded Mr C’s care package which cost £1292.45 per week.
28. The Council was appointee for Mr C’s benefits and paid the benefits (after deducting the contribution) into an account (account 1) which it held on Mr C’s behalf.
29. The Council’s financial assessment of Mr C showed that (weekly figures):
• Mr C’s income from benefits was £175.80.
• The Council correctly excluded DLA Mobility (£62.25) from Mr C’s income when it calculated his contribution and it also deducted the correct Personal Expenses Allowance (£24.90).
• Mr C’s contribution to the cost of his care package was £114.65 so he was allowed to keep the rest of his weekly income (£61.15).
30. The Council paid the Home a Personal Needs Allowance (PNA) of £250 a month for Mr C by cheque.
31. The Home put the PNA into an account it held for Mr C (account 2).
32. In January 2018 the Council opened a prepaid card account for Mr C and started paying the PNA into this account. (Prepaid cards were introduced in 2018 for local authorities to make direct payments).
33. The Home has explained its process of managing money.
34. The Home had a safe in which it held ‘wallets’ of cash for each resident. The Home would withdraw cash from account 2 (until 2018) or from the prepaid card (after 2018) and put the money into the cash wallet. The Home kept a cash log sheet for each wallet so the cash taken from the account would be entered as a credit on the log sheet. If the staff needed money from the cash wallet to pay for any expenditure, this was authorised by a manager and would be entered in the cash log sheet as a debit. Any expenditure was cross-referenced with a receipt or a petty-cash slip.
35. In August 2018, the Council reduced Mr C’s PNA to £150.
36. Mrs B became deputy for Mr C’s property and finances in September 2020.
37. The Council transferred the money in account 1 (£22,774) to Mrs B in October 2020.
38. Mrs B asked the Home to provide her with all the financial information for Mr C for the last 12 years. In October 2020, the Home provided the records from October 2017 to Mrs B. The Home did not keep a photocopy of the records it had provided.

Mrs B’s safeguarding referral – October 2020

39. Mrs B made a safeguarding referral to the Council on 21 October 2020 as she said it had taken too long for the Home to respond and the Home had not provided her with the records before 2018. The Council said this did not meet the threshold for a safeguarding enquiry.
40. Mrs B took the matter to the police and the CQC. The CQC did not take the matter further, but Mrs B informed the Council on 10 November 2020 that the police was carrying out an investigation.
41. Mrs B contacted the Council on 10 November 2020 as she was concerned about the Home’s use of Mr C’s PNA for bedding and towels and £50 a month for social activities. The Council said:
• It was usual practice for PNA to be used to pay for bedding and towels.
• The Council encouraged care homes to arrange social activities for residents. Mrs B questioned some of the activities that the Home organised such as Zumba. The Council explained that this activity was adapted to Mr C’s needs and he enjoyed the activity.

Ms B’s complaint – November 2020

42. Mrs B complained in November 2020. She attached an accountant’s report to the complaint. She said:
• There was ‘suspected financial abuse’.
• The Council had paid Mr C a PNA of £250 a month when she had been told this should be £96 a month.
• The Council had not carried out annual financial reviews to check whether the Home spent Mr C’s money correctly.
• The Home did not have financial records prior to October 2017, although it had a legal duty to keep records for six years under the GDPR.
• The Home withdrew large amounts of cash from Mr C’s account without explaining how the money was spent.
• Some of the receipts for Mr C’s spending were for items that Mr C could not have used. They were Zumba classes, women’s and children’s clothing and toys.
• The items in clothing in Mr C’s possession were far less than the items of clothing that the Home said it had bought for him.
• The Home spent £50 of Mr C’s money on ‘household’ costs but this should be covered by his fees.
• The Home could not say how the £250 cheque each month was ‘cashed’ or what happened to the money. She said she could see that the money had been taken from Mr C’s account and cashed.
• The Home held a bank account (account 2) for Mr C which both the Home and the Council were unaware of. This account held a large amount of money but there was also a large amount missing, from cash withdrawals with no evidence on how the money was spent.

Start of the safeguarding enquiry – 9 December 2020

43. On 9 December 2020, the Council decided the matter met the threshold for a safeguarding enquiry.
44. Mrs B sent an email on 14 December 2020 stating that the police were conducting a formal criminal investigation. The Council said it would suspend its enquiry until the police had completed its investigation.
45. In December 2020, the Council asked Mrs B to send them the receipts that she had received from the Home. Mrs B sent a few receipts.
46. The police told the Council on 18 January 2021 that they were not progressing a criminal investigation. The Council said it would ask the Home to carry out an investigation into the matter. The Council said it could not progress its own enquiry as it did not have the records.
47. The Council emailed Mrs B on 20 January 2021 and said it had asked the Home to carry out an internal investigation.
48. The Council chased Mrs B on 20 January 2021 for the receipts. Mrs B said she had sent a report itemising the receipts but if the Council needed the receipts, then delivery would need to be arranged.

Home’s investigation – 27 January 2021

49. The Home completed its investigation into the complaint on 27 January 2021.
50. The Home explained the background and the processes for managing Mr C’s money. The Home said it opened account 2 when Mr C moved into the Home. It said this was common practice at the time and it believed it was done in conjunction with the Council. The Council sent £250 cheques each month to be paid into the account.
51. Money was withdrawn from account 2 and placed into Mr C’s ‘money wallet’ in line with the policy. The money was used to purchase items such as clothes, toiletries and to pay for activities and outings.
52. The Home said a prepaid card was set up in January 2018 which was then used by the Home and the Council as the main account.
53. However, there were two withdrawals from account 2 after 2018:
• 4 January 2018 - £300
• 11 May 2018 - £200
54. The Home said that, once the prepaid card was opened, money in account 2 should have been managed by the appointee (i.e. the Council). The Home said this did not happen ‘for unknown reasons’ and the bank book for account 2 went into the archives. It was dormant ‘until the bank book was located when the Home went through the archives in response to [Mrs B’s] request for [Mr C’s] data’.
55. The Home concluded:
• Finances had been managed in line with the policies.
• Transactions had not always been countersigned by a second person. That was not a requirement in its policy, but it was good practice.
56. The Home acknowledged that its investigation was limited as it did not have the records which it had given to Mrs B. Therefore, the Home was unable to cross-reference receipts with expenditure.

Response to Mrs B’s complaint – August and September 2021

57. The Council responded to Mrs B’s complaint (from November 2020) in August 2021 and said:
• There were no records of the Council ever carrying out a review of Mr C’s finances and the Council apologised for this.
• This also meant that there had been no review of the PNA.
• The Council was carrying out a safeguarding enquiry into Mrs B’s complaints about the Home’s actions. So the Council could not comment yet on these complaints.
• The Council offered £500 to Mrs B as a goodwill gesture.
58. In September 2021 the Council wrote to Mrs B asking for the receipts. There was a lot of email communication in the following weeks as Mrs B was reluctant to share the original receipts in case they were lost. She also did not understand why the Council needed the documents as her accountant had itemised the information in his report. Mrs B shared the receipts on 8 November 2021.

The safeguarding enquiry- May 2022

59. The Council completed its safeguarding enquiry into the Home on 27 May 2022.
60. The investigating officer made the following enquiries:
• She checked whether a debit from the pre-paid card was matched by a corresponding credit into Mr C’s cash log sheet.
• She checked whether a withdrawal of cash from Mr C’s wallet in the safe was put in the log sheet and then cross-referenced with a receipt or petty cash voucher which explained how the cash was spent.
• If there was a difference in any of the figures, the officer labelled this a discrepancy.
61. The officer said there were discrepancies totalling £1560.90. The main discrepancies identified were:
• There were no log sheets from October 2017 to June 2018 and July 2019.
• There were three debits of £150 on the pre-paid card but no corresponding entry on the log of cash.
• There was a withdrawal of cash on the log sheet on 1 December 2018 of £280 labelled ‘Christmas shop’, but no corresponding receipts.
• There were several minor expenditures where there was no receipt.
62. The Council officer investigated the £50 household costs each month which Mrs B queried, but did not find fault in this respect. The officer said this related to communal expenses, for example entertainers, which attended the Home. These costs were shared by the residents.
63. In relation to the concern that the Home did not keep records prior to October 2017, the Council said its contract with the Home did not specify a retention period for finance records, but the Council’s expectation was that the records should be kept for 3 years.
64. Ms B said records should be kept for 6 years under the GDPR. The Council disagreed and said the GDPR did not set specific times to retain specific data. The GDPR said an organisation could set its own retention policy.
65. The Council’s safeguarding report concluded:
• The safeguarding was substantiated.
• Mr C’s money was not effectively managed by the Home and there were discrepancies in the recording of the finances.
66. The Council made the following recommendations:
• The Home should apologise to Mrs B and pay her £1560.90 for the money that was ‘unaccounted’ for.
• The Home should review its financial management policies and explain to the Council what changes they have made.
• The Council would review the finances of other residents at the Home and would start a safeguarding enquiry if there were any concerns.
• The Council would ensure that staff followed its ‘Managing finances for people’ policy.
• The report would be shared with Mrs B and the police.
67. The Council closed the enquiry and sent the report to Mrs B on 27 May 2022.

Mrs B’s complaint about the enquiry -

68. Mrs B wrote to the Council as she was not satisfied with the outcome of the enquiry. Her main complaints were:
• The Home should have kept records for at least 6 years and had not done so.
• The Council’s investigation covered the transactions from October 2017, but she had concerns about transactions before that date.
• The Council has still not explained why it sent a PNA of £250 a month.
• The Council had not investigated the validity of the receipts. She queried receipts for women’s clothing, perfume and make up and the large amount of clothing and toiletries that the Home had bought for Mr C.

The Home’s response to the report

69. The Council sent the safeguarding report to the Home and the Home did not accept the findings.
70. The Home provided more evidence and said:
• Mrs B’s accountant questioned expenditure on a chiropodist, Zumba classes, sport clothing, toys and buttons. The Home said the accountant was not an expert in the needs of a disabled person. The expenditure met Mr C’s needs and was in line with professionals’ recommendations.
• Mrs B took all of Mr C’s financial records and the Home was not able to photocopy them so it was difficult to respond to complaints about missing log sheets or receipts.
• If the Home was given more information on the money that was unaccounted for, it would refund this to Mr C’s family.
71. The Council then agreed to review the safeguarding report.

Further information

72. The Ombudsman has been sent documents which the officer who carried out the safeguarding enquiry did not have. These were:
• The bank statements relating to account 2 from October to December 2017.
• The log sheets from October 2017 to June 2018.
• The log sheet for July 2019.
73. Therefore, some of the discrepancies that the Council identified in its safeguarding report can now be resolved.
74. Also, the Council said in its report that there were 3 occasions where cash of £150 was withdrawn from the prepaid card, but there was no matching credit in the cash log sheet. However, these were not cash withdrawals but rather transfers of money between Mr C’s different accounts. Therefore, I would not expect a matching credit in the cash log sheet.
75. The Council responded to Mrs B’s complaint that the Council had not addressed all her concerns about whether the Home’s expenditure met Mr C’s needs. The Home said Mrs B’s accountant’s report was not considered in its safeguarding enquiry as:
• ‘his report did not evidence any receipts or log sheets from [the Home].’
• The accountant had limited understanding around the support a person with learning disabilities would need and his approach was too restrictive. For example, the accountant had queried chiropody, exercise classes or sports clothing purely on the basis that Mr C was in a wheelchair.
76. When Mrs B came to the Ombudsman, she added a further complaint which was the Council’s delay in completing the safeguarding enquiry.
77. The Council responded and said it had to wait for the police to complete its investigation and it then had to wait for Mrs B to provide the Council with the documents she had obtained from the Home. Mrs B provided the information in November 2021.
78. The Council also said the Council then had to upload the information to its systems and find an officer who could carry out this detailed and complex investigation. It said the delay happened in the context of the staffing pressures, high workloads and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic recovery.

Analysis

79. I have grouped Mrs B’s complaints in three sections:
• The Council’s management of Mr C’s finances.
• The Home’s management of Mr C’s finances
• The Council’s safeguarding enquiry.
80. As the second and third complaint sections are interlinked, I will address them together.

The Council’s management of Mr C’s finances

81. There was clear fault in the Council’s failure to carry out a yearly review of Mr C’s finances during all the years I have investigated (2017 to 2021).
82. The Council did not adhere to its own policy in how to manage vulnerable adult’s finances. There were a number of checks the Council should have carried out:
• Monitor account 2 (held by the Home).
• Check whether the money taken out of account 2 and the prepaid card corresponded to the money entered into the cash log sheet.
• Check whether the money was spent appropriately on Mr C and that it met his needs.
• Check whether there was not more than £16,000/£21,500 in accounts held on behalf of Mr C.
83. It is my understanding that the Council could not find evidence it had ever carried out a review of Mr C’s finances in all the years that it was acting as his appointee which is a very serious concern.
84. The Council’s failure left Mr C more vulnerable to financial abuse. Also, as nobody was checking what money was spent or how it was spent, it resulted in a large build-up of savings (over £30,000 in total) in Mr C’s accounts and this should not have happened.
85. There will always be the question whether, if there had been regular reviews, the money could have been better spent on meeting Mr C’s needs. Maybe, Mr C could have had more treats, outings or holidays with the money that was sitting in these accounts. Sadly, as Mr C has passed away, this injustice to him cannot be rectified.
86. There was also fault in the Council’s failure to review the PNA amount for Mr C. I do not understand how a council can pay out £250 each month and not know how it came to that figure. That shows a lack of clear decision making and oversight. The matter was made worse by the Council’s failure to carry out any financial reviews which would have included a review of the PNA.
87. Overall, there were serious failings in the way the Council managed Mr C’s finances.

The safeguarding enquiry / the Home’s management of the finance

88. I should note that, generally speaking, the Ombudsman would not investigate a matter if there was an open safeguarding enquiry into the same issue. It is not appropriate for two public bodies to investigate the same concerns.
89. I opened this investigation into Mrs B’s complaint because the Council said it had closed its safeguarding enquiry into the complaint. However, when I received the response to my enquiries, I realised the Home had not accepted the findings of the safeguarding report and that the Council was in the process of reviewing the report. Therefore, the matter was not closed.
90. I am of the view that the Council closed the enquiry too early, before the safeguarding process was properly completed. The Council had a duty to share the report with the Home and to give the Home a chance to respond to the allegations and to the recommendations. Its failure to do so before it closed the enquiry was fault.
91. The Council’s main findings in the safeguarding enquiry was that there were discrepancies the in Home’s handling of Mr C’s finances totalling £1560.90. The major discrepancies were:
• Debits from account 2 or prepaid card which were not matched with a credit in Mr C’s cash log sheet.
• Missing cash log sheets.
• Missing receipts for expenditure.
92. I note, however, that the Home has provided further evidence which would affect the findings and the Council is in the process of reviewing its report. Also, the Home was not able to fully respond to the discrepancies as it did not have copies of the receipts and log sheets.
93. The Home has admitted that there were occasions where there were no receipts for expenditure and this was fault. From the evidence I have seen, the most concerning withdrawal was £280 in December 2018 for Christmas expenses. There were no receipts to match that expenditure and a large amount was withdrawn in one transaction.
94. I note the Home carried out a weekly balance check from June 2020, in line with the change in its policy. I also agree with the Home’s investigation that there were frequent transactions without a second signature to authorise it, but I accept that this was not a requirement in its policy, although it would have been good practice.

Safeguarding enquiry did not address all the concerns

95. I have also considered Mrs B’s complaint that the safeguarding enquiry did not go far enough as it did not address the concerns that the money was not always spent on Mr C (for example, large amounts of clothing and toiletries, women’s clothing and make up) or did not meet his needs (Zumba sessions, chiropody and £50 for ‘household costs).
96. I accept that the accountant was not an expert in meeting the needs of people with learning disabilities but I do not agree that this meant that the Council could ignore the accountant’s report or the concerns raised in the report.
97. The report formed part of Mrs B’s complaint and she had concerns about the expenditure. The Council should have addressed those concerns in the enquiry. The Council was the only organisation which could answer Mrs B’s questions as only the Council’s adult social care team could say whether particular expenditure met Mr C’s needs or not. The Council had a duty to address the questions, even more so as, in the past, the Council had never checked whether the Home’s expenditure met Mr C’s needs.
98. The Council addressed the question of the £50 for household costs in the report and did not find fault in this respect.
99. The Council explained in correspondence outside of the safeguarding report why the expenditure on Zumba classes, chiropody and bedding/towels was justified.
100. However, there are still outstanding questions relating to expenditure on:
• Women’s and children’s clothing.
• Toys.
• Make up and perfume.
• Large amount of clothing and toiletries.
101. The relevant receipts for this expenditure should be shared with the Home so the Home can comment on the expenditure.

Delay in the safeguarding enquiry

102. I agree there was fault in the delay in completing the safeguarding enquiry. The Council opened the enquiry on 9 December 2020 and did not complete it until 27 May 2022.
103. I accept the Council put the investigation on hold on 14 December 2020 because Mrs B said the police was carrying out an investigation. But the police told the Council it was not investigating the matter on 18 January 2021. Therefore, the delay caused by the police’s possible involvement was only a month.
104. The Council said that some of the delay related to Mrs B’s refusal to share the documents. The Council asked Mrs B for the information in December 2020. I note that there was reference in the email of January 2021 to the Council asking Mrs B for information, but I cannot see that the Council pursued this in the following months. The case notes show that the Council chased Mrs B in September 2021 for the documents and they were provided in November 2021.
105. I accept that the COVID-19 pandemic and pressures on the Council’s may have had some impact on the delay.
106. However, overall, I am of the view that the Council’s explanations do not justify the entire delay in the completion of the report and some of that delay was caused by the Council’s inaction and was therefore fault.

No records before 2017

107. I agree with the Council’s assessment of the retention requirements as set out in its enquiry report. The GDPR does not require care homes to keep finance records for 6 years. The GDPR does not set any retention schedules and says it is up to the organisation to decide how long it will keep records.
108. The Council’s contract with care homes did not specify a retention time for records, but its expectation was that records should be kept for 3 years.
109. I am of the view that it would have been good practice for the Council and the Home to have set out formally what the retention schedules were. But it would not have made a difference to Mrs B’s complaint as, even if there had been a policy, this would have set the retention time at 3 years. Therefore, there is no fault in the fact that the Home did not have records going back further than 3 years.

Failure to declare account 2

110. I will next address Mrs B’s complaint about the Home’s failure to declare account 2.
111. The Home held account 2 for Mr C and the Council used to pay Mr C’s PNA into this account. The Council opened a prepaid card for Mr C in January 2018. The Home should have closed account 2 at this stage and returned the money to the Council.
112. The Home failed to do this and this was fault. The Home archived the account and said it was not aware of the account until Mrs B asked to see all the financial records and the Home found the bank books. That was fault. It showed a lack of oversight of Mr C’s finances that a care home could archive an account which contained £11,208.
113. Of course, if the Council had been carrying out its annual reviews, it would have reviewed account 2 on a yearly basis. So the fault is shared by the Council and the Home.
114. In terms of injustice to Mr C, I refer to paragraphs 85 and 86.

Injustice and remedy

115. I have already set out in paragraphs 85 and 86, the injustice Mr C suffered because of the Council and Home’s faults. Sadly, as Mr C has passed away, any injustice to him cannot be remedied.
116. I have also considered the injustice to Mrs B. Mrs B has suffered distress because of the fault as she will always be left with the uncertainty whether, if Mr C’s finances had been managed better, the money may have been spent better on meeting his needs, rather than the money remain in his accounts unspent.
117. If injustice is distress, the Ombudsman says the injustice cannot be remedied by a payment but we can seek a symbolic amount to acknowledge the impact of the fault on the complainant. Normally, this payment is a moderate sum between £100 to £300, although exceptionally we can ask for more. The Council has offered a payment of £500 and I am of the view that this is an appropriate remedy.
118. Mrs B has also suffered an injustice because the safeguarding report did not address all her concerns. The Council has said it is reviewing the report. The Council should, in the review:
• Consider the additional evidence.
• Further investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the validity of expenditure as set out in paragraph 101.

Back to top

Agreed action

119. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although I found fault with the actions of the Home, I have made recommendations to the Council.
120. I have noted the service improvements the Council made following the safeguarding enquiry, in terms of carrying out financial reviews.
121. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Care Quality Commission.
122. The Council has agreed to take the following actions within one month of the final decision. It will:
• Apologise to Mrs B in writing for the fault.
• Pay Mrs B £500.
• Review the safeguarding enquiry report.
• Hold a meeting/ safeguarding conference and invite the Home and Mrs B to the meeting/safeguarding conference to discuss the outcome of the safeguarding enquiry.

Back to top

Final decision

123. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed the remedy to address the injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

124. I have not investigated complaints relating to events before October 2017 as there are insufficient records to carry out an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman