Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council chasing her for payment of an invoice she had already paid. This is because we could not add to the Council’s investigation. Ms X has made additional complaints, which it is appropriate for the Council to investigate and respond before we consider whether our involvement is justified.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council chased her for payment of outstanding care charges when she had paid the invoices, which caused distress and meant she was put to avoidable time and trouble pursuing the Council to resolve the matter.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization.

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

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X complained the Council sent reminder letters and court warning letters in relation to invoices she had already paid, which caused her distress.
7. In its complaint response, the Council accepted that emails trying to explain which payments had been matched with which invoices were confusing. It set out in a table all the payments received and which invoice they had been matched with.
8. The problem has arisen because Ms X paid her contribution by standing order, which has to be manually matched to the relevant invoice, rather than direct debit. Paying by direct debit would mean the Council claims the correct amount for the latest invoice so the payment and invoice are automatically linked. It also means the payment is adjusted where the invoice is lower because Ms X received care for three weeks instead of four in the charging period.
9. Paying by standing order also means Ms X is more likely to receive reminder letters and court warning letters because these are issued automatically if there is no payment linked to the invoice. That said, in its complaint response the Council accepted that, as Ms X was a regular payer, it should have reviewed the account before sending a court warning letter, for which it apologised. It said it would change its process to prevent that happening in future.
10. The Council has explained to Ms X why Ms X received reminder letters and a court warning letter and, although these were in line with its process, it has said it would change its approach to prevent that happening in future. This was appropriate action for it to take and there is nothing further we could add to the Council’s investigation. Therefore, we will not consider the complaint further.

New complaints

11. During our investigation, Ms X said the Council had told her she now owed over £2,000 and also said the Council had not taken into account two payments she had made when it responded to her complaint.
12. Ms X provided some information about the payments made, which I have checked against the payments the Council has recorded. I identified two payments the Council had not recorded on Ms X’s account – a payment of £124.86 made on 28 June 2023 and a payment of £166.48 on 26 July 2024. The Council says it has no record of receiving those payments. It will carry out further checks if Ms X provides more information about the payments. It is appropriate for this to happen and for the Council to respond to this part of the complaint before we consider whether further investigation by us is appropriate.
13. In relation to the outstanding care charges, the Council told Ms X this related to care received before she set up a standing order. The Council told me Ms X did not pay any contribution for a period because she told it that her Personal Independence Payments (PIP) had stopped. Since she did not tell it the PIP payments had been reinstated straightaway, the Council had to recalculate her contribution, which was then back-dated to the point the payment was reinstated. The complaint about the amount outstanding was not part of Ms X’s original complaint to the Council or to us. We cannot investigate complaints where the Council has not had the chance to respond to fully through its complaints handling process. Therefore, we will not consider this complaint further at this stage.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we cannot add to the Council’s investigation in relation to the original complaint. In relation to further complaints, it is appropriate for the Council to investigate further and respond before we consider whether our involvement is justified.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman