The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about direct payments. This is because the complaint is late and we do not have good reasons to make an exception to consider it now.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr B, complained that the Council failed to advise him fully about direct payments and did not stop them when he first requested this.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended) 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: we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant, his complaint to the Council and the Council’s response to it.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Mr B has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.
My assessment
Mr B told us a council officer, officer Z, visited him at home and advised him to apply for direct payments for his care. Mr B said officer Z filled in forms and told him all he would have to pay was an administration fee. About six months later the Council told Mr B he would have to pay just over £100 a week for his contribution to his care costs. Mr B said, if he had known this sooner, he would not have gone ahead with direct payments. Mr B said he tried to cancel the direct payments in June 2020 but the Council failed to stop them until he made a call to officer Z.
Mr B could have put forward a defence in court had the Council started court proceedings to recover the amount it said he owed. But he agreed to enter into a payment arrangement with the Council to pay the debt. He told us he did this to avoid debt recovery action but he now wants the Council to write off the debt.
We cannot consider complaints about something that happened over 12 months before a complainant contacted us unless there are good reasons. In this case, because of the lapse of time before Mr B complained to the Council and to us, it is unlikely we could reach a sound decision, particularly about the adequacy of the information officer Z presented to Mr B in December 2019. Mr B could have complained sooner. There is not now a sound enough basis for us to call on the Council to provide the remedy Mr B wants, that is to write off his debt.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because his complaint is late and we do not have good reasons to make an exception and to consider it now.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman