The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about how the Council handled its financial assessment for his father’s care. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response and there is not enough remaining injustice to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Mr Y complains about errors in the Council’s financial assessments for his father, Mr Z’s care. Mr Y says the Council’s errors caused him stress and took up his time resolving the matter. He wants a personal apology from the Council officer involved and for the Council to review its financial assessment processes to prevent similar errors for others.
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 or continue an investigation if we decide: we could not add to the previous investigation by the organisation; any remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr Y complains errors in its financial assessments resulted in the Council overcharging Mr Z for his care. He raised concerns about the capability of the Council officer who carried out the assessments.
In its complaint response, the Council apologised for the errors in Mr Z’s financial assessments. It explained how the errors had occurred and offered to arrange an appointment between an assessment officer and Mr Y to discuss the updated financial assessments and explain the calculations.
The Council also apologised if Mr Y’s experience with its officer had caused him distress. It outlined its staff received regular ongoing training and said it would consider if any actions were needed to improve service provision.
We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has accepted there were errors in the financial assessments, explained how these had occurred and apologised to Mr Y for this. It has taken action to correct the assessments and offered Mr Y a meeting to explain how it has calculated the charges. There is no indication of any ongoing disagreement about the charges for Mr Z’s care, and we could not require the Council to issue a personal apology from an individual officer, so it is unlikely we could add to this response. Any remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s response and there is not enough remaining injustice to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman