Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about support managing an adult social care direct payment. This is because the Council has accepted where it was at fault, recognised this had an impact on the complainant, and has apologised. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken. There is no continuing injustice to warrant any further investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council failed to support her mother, Ms C, in her role managing the direct payments for her husband’s care. The Council sent correspondence to the wrong address. Ms C was often stressed and overwhelmed and would call Ms B in tears. Ms B would then spend much time and trouble contacting the Council to correct errors. Ms B wants the Council to compensate them.

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 organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

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 considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Guidance on remedies.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In response to Ms B’s complaint, the Council accepted where it was at fault, accepted its fault caused Ms B and Ms C avoidable distress, and apologised for that impact.
8. Ms B wants the Council to make a financial payment to recognise the impact.
9. We do not investigate all complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
10. Our Guidance on remedies explains any payment we recommend would usually be a modest amount whose value is intended to be largely symbolic, rather than purely financial. And, as a body focused on individual justice and institutional improvement, we do not impose punitive fines for errors or act to punish people.
11. The injustice to Ms B and Ms C is no longer continuing. Mr C has died and so Ms C is no longer managing a direct payment. Ms C was clearly stressed by the Council’s actions, or inactions, and this then took a toll on Ms B when she had to give the needed support. The Council has accepted this and apologised.
12. I am satisfied with the Council’s actions in response to the complaint and do not consider there is unremedied injustice which would warrant the Ombudsman committing its resource to investigate further. It is unlikely we would add to the Council’s investigation or achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because I am satisfied with the actions the Council has taken. The Council has accepted where its fault has caused injustice and apologised for the impact of that. Though Ms B wants compensation, I do not consider there is unremedied injustice that would warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman