Summary: Mr F complained about the Council’s handling of a payment for expenses he incurred. The Council made the payment into an account used for direct payments. Mr F had difficulty withdrawing the money, and when he did the audit team questioned his spending. There was fault by the Council in its handling of a payment to Mr F, but the Council has offered a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr F complained about the Council’s handling of a payment for expenses he incurred. The Council made the payment into an account used for direct payments. Mr F had difficulty withdrawing the money, and when he did the audit team questioned his spending.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused injustice we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I have considered information provided by Mr F and the Council. I invited Mr F and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Council responded to Mr F’s complaint at both stages of its corporate complaints process.
6. The Council acknowledged it should have notified the audit team in advance that Mr F could withdraw the money and this would have avoided the problem.
7. The Council acknowledged Mr F had done nothing wrong and that its actions had caused him considerable frustration. The Council offered a payment of £600.
8. Mr F remains unhappy. He complained the Council had not complied with its contractual and data processing obligations, and said he believed the Council should notify the Information Commissioner. He was unhappy the Council paid the £600 to the same account and said he would prefer a cheque. Mr F described in detail the stress the matter had caused him.

Consideration

9. I acknowledge the stress the matter has caused Mr F. This is one of a number of complaints he has made about the Council. The fact he has had cause to complain before has no doubt compounded the stress these matters caused him.
10. It is for the Council to decide how to pay Mr F the money it owed him.
11. The Council chose to transfer the money to a bank account used for direct payments. It should have been a straightforward matter, but the Council failed to foresee there would be audit problems when Mr F withdrew the money.
12. The Council has recognised the problems and taken action to ensure similar problems do not happen in the future.
13. The Council has offered a substantial payment of £600 to recognise Mr F’s inconvenience and distress.
14. I consider the Council has provided a suitable remedy. It has followed our published guidance on remedies.
15. Mr F would prefer to receive the payment by cheque. That is entirely a matter for the Council to decide.
16. I do not consider it would be proportionate for me to respond to Mr F’s concerns about the Council’s contractual and data processing obligations since I could not add anything more to the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council in its handling of a payment to Mr F, but the Council has offered a suitable remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman