Suffolk County Council (19 011 104)

Category : Adult care services > Transport

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 09 Dec 2019

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s late complaint that the Council overpaid a taxi firm for her son’s transport to day care. Ms X has not complained in the normal 12 month period and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to accept the complaint now.

The complaint

  1. Ms X complains that a taxi firm that transports her disabled son to day care invoiced the Council for transport on days she had cancelled in advance over a period of four years. She says the Council has overpaid the taxi firm, wasting public money. Ms X wants the Council to hold the taxi firm to account for what she says are fraudulent charges.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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 has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
  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 the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained or the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have considered comments and information from Ms X and the Council. I have written to Ms X with my draft decision and given her an opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

  1. In May 2017 Ms X complained to the Council about the way it oversees and monitors charges for day care services and transport. She said the system allowed service providers to charge on multiple occasions without providing any services at all.
  2. Ms X made further complaints in 2017 and 2018. She complained that despite cancelling her son’s transport on several occasions over a four year period with sufficient notice, the taxi firm invoiced the Council for transport that was never provided and the Council paid it without making proper checks.
  3. The Council responded to the complaints in 2017 and 2018. It signposted Ms X to the Ombudsman in March and April 2018.
  4. The restriction outlined in paragraph two applies to this complaint because it relates to issues that arose well over 12 months ago. We have discretion to set aside the restriction where we consider there are good reasons. Having carefully considered the matter I have decided we should not exercise discretion to accept this late complaint because:
    • Ms X has known about the matter and has been complaining to the Council about it since early 2017. The Council signposted Ms X to the Ombudsman in March and April 2018 but she did not bring her complaint to us until October 2019, more than 18 months later.
    • Ms X has not provided any good reasons why she did not contact the Ombudsman sooner. It is reasonable to expect her to have complained sooner.
    • Ms X says the Council is wasting public money by paying for services that were not provided. This does not cause her or her son a significant person injustice.
    • Ms X’s son receives a direct payment from the Council to pay for her care and support. However, the taxi firm invoiced the Council directly, so Ms X’s son has not been financially disadvantaged.
    • Ms X suspects that her son’s personal budget may have been less than it should have been because the Council overpaid the taxi firm. There is no logical link between the two issues. Personal budgets are calculated based on an individual’s eligible care and support needs following an assessment.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate this complaint because it is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to accept the complaint now.

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