Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council billing her son Mr X for backdated care fees, the time taken before officers noticed the debt, officer comments during a telephone call, other administrative issues on the account, and the debt amount being sought. There is not enough evidence of Council fault which alters the care fee debt to warrant us investigating. The Council apologised for the officer’s comments and investigation would achieve no different outcome. There is insufficient injustice caused by the administrative issues and the dispute about the debt amount to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X is Miss X’s son. Mr X has autism and was receiving care arranged by the Council. Miss X acts for Mr X as his financial representative. She complains the Council:
1. is unfairly seeking payment by her son of a care fee debt caused by a change to his benefits;
2. allowed the debt to build up for a year;
3. was unprofessional with her when discussing the matter on the telephone;
4. made errors in its communications with her, including sending letters to the wrong address and letters with someone else’s personal information;
5. is seeking money from after the care was stopped in July 2024.
2. Miss X says the Council is pursuing Mr X for a backdated sum of over £2,200. She says she was shocked to receive the invoice and that the matter has affected her and Mr X’s mental health due to stress and upset caused. Miss X says Mr X has cancelled some care because he could not afford it, putting pressure on her.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; 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. In July 2023 Mr X’s benefits changed from Employment and Support Allowance to Universal Credit. This resulted in him having to contribute to his care because he received more money. Miss X says she has mental health issues and had other personal matters to deal with at the time. She says she forgot to tell the Council about this change in Mr X’s finances.
6. As Mr X’s representative for his finances, it was Miss X’s role to tell the Council about the change, acting in Mr X’s best interests. We recognise Miss X’s circumstances at the time may have made it difficult for her to meet her responsibilities. But if she could not fulfil the role, she might have delegated it to another person. It is not fault for the Council to now seek repayment of the care fees Mr X became liable for when he received more benefits in July 2023.
7. Miss X considers it was the Council’s fault that the fees issue was not identified for about a year, making the debt larger. It is not the duty of the Council to gather Mr X’s information from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), nor for the DWP to tell the Council. The responsibility was on Miss X to tell the Council as soon as the change in Mr X’s finances happened, to avoid a debt accruing. It is not fault that the Council did not identify the change in Mr X’s finances until a year later during its telephone call with her.
8. The Council accepts comments made by the officer in the 2024 telephone call with Miss X were inappropriate. It has raised this with the officer involved. Miss X says the officer’s manager called to apologise for the comments after the call. An apology is the outcome we may have sought for this part of the complaint had we investigated. That this outcome has been achieved means investigation would not lead to a different outcome, so we will not do so.
9. Miss X’s complaint refers to the Council sending a letter to the wrong address. But there is no claimed link between this reported error and the core issue of Mr X’s care fee debt. If the Council did send a letter to the wrong address, that is not a fault which led to the debt so we will not investigate it.
10. Miss X also says the Council sent her a copy of someone else’s letter instead of one relating to Mr X. This would be a potential data breach by the Council. But it is not a breach of Mr X’s or Miss X’s data, so the matter causes neither of them sufficient significant injustice to warrant us investigating. We note Miss X says she has concerns that Mr X’s information has been disclosed to someone else. But there is no evidence this happened, nor any evidence that if it did that it caused an injustice which justifies an investigation.
11. In her complaint to us, Miss X disputes the debt amount the Council is seeking. She says she cancelled the care at the start of July 2024 but that the bill includes an amount for the following month. The difference between the debt amount the Council has invoiced and the additional amount Miss X disputes is about £50. This is not a sufficiently significant injustice to justify us investigating. If Miss X considers the Council has overcharged when calculating the amount Mr X may be repaying, she should ask the Council to review it, explaining where she believes it has made an error.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant us investigating; and
• investigation of the 2024 telephone conversation would not achieve any different outcome; and
• there is insufficient unremedied injustice to Mr X or Miss X from other matters raised to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman