Summary: We will not investigate Miss X complaint about the Council not taking direct debit payments for her late parents Mr and Mrs Y’s care alarm system for a year. The Council’s apology to Miss X is the remedy and outcome we would have sought from an investigation. We could not add to the Council’s investigation and there is no different outcome our investigating would achieve.

The complaint

1. Miss X is the late Mr and Mrs Y’s daughter. Mrs Y had a care alarm system in her name, paid by monthly direct debit from a joint account she held with Mr Y. When Mrs Y died, Miss X asked the Council to put the contract in Mr Y’s name. Miss X believed the payments would continue from the joint account. She complains the Council:
1. failed to keep taking the payments for the alarm system by direct debit after her mother died;
2. delayed for 12 months before invoicing for the unpaid service.
2. Miss X says a debt of £352 built up on the account and she was shocked to receive the bill, soon after Mr Y’s death. She wants the Council to:
• accept liability for the error and the breach of the direct debit terms and conditions; and
• pay half the outstanding bill.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Miss X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. There was fault by the Council as its officers dealing with the continuation of the care alarm contract did not communicate with officers about how the direct debit payments could continue from Mr and Mrs Y’s joint account. The delay in invoicing for the unpaid bill was also fault. The Council has apologised for its officers not communicating about the continuation of the direct debit payment for the alarm service which led to the unpaid fees. It has also apologised for the timing of the invoice and the upset this caused to Miss X.
6. Were we to investigate, the apologies the Council has provided is the remedy and outcome we would have sought for Miss X’s injustice. We could not add to the Council’s investigation and there is no different outcome for the complaint an investigation by us would achieve here.
7. We note the financial outcome Miss X seeks is for the Council to waive half of the care alarm bill. But the Council’s admitted errors in the administration of payments for the service had no bearing on the value or cost or the service Mr Y received. There are no grounds for waiving all or a portion of the invoice as part of the remedy here because Mr Y received the full benefit of the service.
8. In reaching this decision, we also take into account that Mr Y, and possibly Miss X depending on her involvement in helping her father with his finances at the time, could have acted to prevent or reduce the subsequent impacts on Miss X of the unpaid invoice. This could have been done by Mr Y or Miss X looking at the bank account and checking whether the direct debit payments were being taken over those 12 months. They could then have noticed the payments were not being taken and contacted the Council. This would have avoided the build-up of the debt and the need for the invoice for an unpaid bill.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because:
• we could not add to the Council’s investigation and its outcome; and
• there is no different outcome an investigation by us would achieve.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman