The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council sending demand notices for a debt related to his late father’s care charges. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or worthwhile outcomes.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the Council sending demand notices for a debt related to his late father’s care charges. He said he had to chase the Council for a resolution.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X’s father received care and support services. Mr X received two invoices in April and May 2024, which was his father had died. The Council confirmed its invoiced for charges in arrears and so the two invoices it sent to Mr X was for care charges related to the period February to April 2024.
The Council confirmed its invoice system automatically generates demand notices for any invoices that is unpaid after 21 days of the date of issue, and then again after 35 days.
I am satisfied an investigation is justified as we are not likely to find fault with the Council for sending out the demand notices. This is because the Council has a responsibility to chase for outstanding payments due.
Mr X contacted the Council in June 2024. The Council told Mr X the invoices were payable but acknowledged there had been an overcharge. The Council issued a credit against the account. In its complaint response, the Council accepted it failed to tell Mr X about the credit applied in June 2024 and apologised for this oversight.
Mr X contacted the Council again at the end of June 2024 to advise there were no funds remaining in his father’s estate to pay the outstanding invoices. The Council referred the matter to its debt team.
The Council’s debt team contacted Mr X without any delay and made a decision at the beginning of July 2024 to waive the charges and close the account.
Mr X considers a financial remedy payment is necessary to recognise the time and trouble taken to pursue the matter. The evidence shows the Council resolved the matter at the beginning of July 2024 as it had agreed to waive the outstanding charges and closed the account. This was one month after Mr X contacted the Council after receiving the demands. I am satisfied this is a reasonable amount of time taken for the Council to consider and resolve the matter. I do not consider there has been any delay in the Council dealing with the matter.
The Council accepted it failed to tell Mr X about the credit that had been applied to his father’s account. The Council has apologised for this, and I am satisfied this was an appropriate remedy.
Therefore, an investigation is not justified as it would not lead to any further findings or worthwhile outcomes.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or worthwhile outcomes.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman