Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Councils failure to communicate effectively with him. This is because we are satisfied the Council has implemented additional processes to ensure concerns are dealt with more effectively in the future. There is no unremedied injustice warranting an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained he was unable to attend his late uncle’s funeral because the Council did not respond to his requests for information in a timely way. Mr B says because he did not have information, he was unable to contact the funeral directors to enquire about funeral arrangements, consequently, he was unable to attend his uncle’s funeral. Mr B says he contacted the Council in 2015 so it had a contact address for him. Mr B says he should be financially compensated because of the Council’s failures.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• 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))

3. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, 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. The complainant now has an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council responded to Mr B’s complaints. It acknowledged communication was not at a standard expected and advised of the processes it has put in place to minimise the risk of a similar occurrence. It explained although it had Mr B’s address from his 2015 communication, it was in connection with his query about why the Council was his uncle’s deputy when he was a relative. The Council advised Mr B in 2015 of his right to apply to the Court of Protection if he wanted deputyship for his uncle’s finances. The Council says it did not receive any further communication from him or the court, advising deputyship had been applied for. Mr B says this is negligence. We could not say this is negligence or make a different finding even if we investigated.
8. Mr B contacted the care home in May 2020 asking how his uncle was. The care provider told Mr B his uncle had passed away the previous month. Mr B contacted the Council for information about the funeral. The staff member dealing with his query said they would get back to him later that day but did not. Mr B chased this up and left several messages, unaware until he telephoned the Contact Team, that the member of staff was on leave. The member of staff contacted him on return to work and gave him the details of the funeral directors, however, the funeral had taken place earlier that morning, so Mr B was unable to attend. The staff member said they had tried to call him but his mailbox was full.
9. Mr B is concerned the staff member lied about contacting him as he had not received any missed calls neither was his mailbox full as suggested. Mr B says the staff member should be disciplined; however, we cannot discipline staff or say the Council should. These are personnel matters and are not within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
10. Mr B says he should receive financial compensation because he missed his uncle’s funeral.
11. The Council apologised for the poor communication Mr B received from it and explained what it has done to minimise the risk of a similar occurrence. It says it has amended its processes and implemented additional practices. It says:

• all staff must divert their office phones to their work mobile when they are not in the office;
• when staff are on planned absences from work they are to divert their phones to a colleagues phones with agreement from the colleague;
• all staff are required to check their voicemails once a day and ensure queries are responded to.

12. In addition, the Council says it has provided its Contact Team with an up-to-date list of staff contact numbers and is ensuring a member of staff is in the office each day so staff can get enquiries to the right place as quickly as possible to prevent delay. The Council advised all learning and actions are shared with divisional and Adult Social Care directors. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken to remedy the fault and there is no further injustice warranting an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are satisfied with the remedies implemented by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman