Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mr C’s complaint about how the Council met his son’s care needs. Following the Council’s own investigations into the complaint, neither Mr C nor his son have any remaining injustice significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr C, complains about how the Council managed its delivery of support his son, whom I refer to as Mr B. Mr B is an adult who receives support to meet his care needs.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information from Mr C and the Council. Both had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr C made a series of complaints to us about how the Council dealt with Mr B and himself in the process of deciding (and funding) provision for Mr B.
5. Mr C subsequently withdrew several complaints which were either addressed by the Council or which he is pursuing by other means. I will not comment on them individually here. But I will address the others below.

Remedy payments

6. Two of Mr C’s original complaints (primarily regarding delays to support) have already been acknowledged and remedied by the Council. As part of this, the Council offered Mr C over £4k to recognise his, and Mr B’s, injustice.
7. Mr said he did not receive the remedy payments when he was supposed to. But the Council has now provided evidence to show that it made the payments. This means Mr C has no remaining injustice, and I will not look at this matter further.

Underpayment

8. Mr C complains that the Council sent Mr B less money to pay for a service than it had previously agreed. He says this is because the Council backdated the money by five months and decided that, taking into account the backdated money, Mr B had been overpaid during that five-month period.
9. Mr C’s concern is that Mr B, who only recently got access to the money, will now only have it for seven months, rather than the year he had hoped for – in effect, losing out on five months’ worth of funding.
10. However, I will not investigate this complaint, because I note that the Council has also brought its review of the funding forward by five months (from August to April 2024). This means that, if it intends to continue the funding, its review should take place in time to ensure there is no gap. So there does not appear to be any significant injustice to Mr B.
11. Mr C is worried that the funding will be cancelled, or there will be delays, and this will affect Mr B’s support. But this is speculative and is something he can address in the future (if it happens).

Complaint restrictions

12. The Council has recently issued a ‘communication plan’ with Mr C which sets out requirements on his contact with the Council.
13. Mr C says this restricts his ability to complain. But I do not agree. It simply reinforces the Council’s existing approach to complaints. There is nothing stopping him making new complaints as and when they arise. The only restriction is to Mr C’s pursuit of complaints once the Council’s procedure has been exhausted.
14. This does not cause a significant injustice to Mr C, so I will not investigate it.
15. Mr C is concerned that the Council will not stick to its side of the agreement, which relates to timely responses to complaints. But this, again, is speculative. If the Council fails to meet the terms of the agreement in future, he can address this then.

Poor complaint-handling

16. Although we do frequently investigate how councils have handled complaints (as part of investigations into other matters), it is not a good use of public resources to do so if we are not dealing with the substantive issue.
17. As I will not investigate any substantive parts of Mr C’s complaint, for the reasons given above, I will not begin an investigation solely about the Council’s complaint-handling.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I have discontinued my investigation,

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman