Decision Date: 26 June 2024
Summary
York failed to apply a promised 2.5% inflationary increase to a service user’s direct payments from April 2023. The Council was found at fault for not implementing the increase, failing to communicate effectively with the complainant, and for not responding to the complaint in a timely manner.
What happened
A complaint was made on behalf Mrs X in respect of the direct payments received for her domiciliary care at her home, which were managed, through her nomination, by her husband Mr X, who was in his nineties.
In early June 2023, Mr X requested a review of Mrs. X’s care and support plan due to perceived insufficient direct payments. The review happened in July but since he was frustrated by the Council’s lack of response to previous correspondence about the rate, Mr X complained.
In May 2023, the Council had informed Mr X of a 2.5% inflationary increase to Mrs X’s direct payments, to take effect from April 2023. Mr X had informed the carers of their increased fees [the report refers to a fee rather than to a salary, so they may have been self-employed, or it might indicate he was using an agency and thus paying an invoice].
He began covering the uplift from his own funds but stopped when the Council failed to apply the increase. Despite multiple contacts with the Council between July and August, the issue remained unresolved.
In September 2023, Mr X sought help through freedom of information legislation and his local councillor but was eventually referred to the Ombudsman. After receiving advice from the Ombudsman in November 2023, Mr X officially complained to the Council about its failure to apply the inflationary uplift, citing his age and the impact on his health.
When the Council still did not respond, Mr X contacted the Ombudsman again in January 2024 which prompted the late recognition of his complaint in February.
In March 2024, the Council admitted it owed Mrs X the inflationary uplift for the period from April to July 2023, totalling £199.86, and paid the overdue amount to Mr X. [The report does not indicate what the reason for the omission was, how many people it had affected, or why July was the end of the problem of a shortfall.]
What was found
The Council was at fault for not implementing the increase of 2.5%:
“When the Council tells its service user it will do something it should follow up with the action. The failure to do so undermines confidence in the Council as a provider of public services and is contrary to the principles of good administrative practice. This led to significant frustration and distress for Mr X, who felt responsible for ensuring the payment was made…
Mr X spent much time contacting various people and services trying to get the Council to honour its commitment to apply the inflationary increase. He contacted in error the Information Commissioner and sought help from the local councillor. This shows how important for him was to resolve this matter.”
The Council was at fault for failing to communicate effectively with Mr. X and for not responding to his complaint in a timely manner:
“[The] Council should provide efficient services to all its service users and should also take into account people’s individual circumstances. This did not happen for Mr X.
I … consider that because of Mr X’s age and his responsibilities around making arrangements for his wife, the injustice caused to him by the Council’s failings was significant.”
The Ombudsman recommended that the Council undertake the following actions to remedy the injustice caused:
- Apologise to Mr X;
- Pay Mr X £50 to recognise his distress caused by the Council’s fault to communicate with him effectively;
- Pay Mr X £50 to recognise his time and trouble spent on complaining.
- Remind its Adult Social Care staff of the importance of timely communication with the service users and of taking their individual circumstances into account;
- Review its complaint handling for the Adult Social Care complaints to ensure they are properly recorded and responded to in accordance with the Council’s policy.
Points to note for councils, professionals, people using services and their carers, advocacy groups, members of the public
When a council commits to a specific action, such as adjusting payments, it must follow through promptly to maintain trust and confidence in its services.
This common sense approach is reflected in the public law doctrine of legitimate expectation, but this is the least of the problems here:
There’s the whole question of the sufficiency of the budget – a requirement for a budget to be lawful in the first place – and the secondary and unmentioned issue of the obligation on all councils to provide advice and information as to how the system works, including the complaint system. This poor gentleman went a circuitous route to getting a resolution which should not have been necessary had there been even a minimum level of information about what to do and what to expect if one has a complaint!
Councils should also adhere strictly to their complaint handling policies, ensuring complaints are logged, addressed promptly, and followed up as required. Ignoring or delaying responses can exacerbate the service user’s distress.
We have to say that we are surprised that the Ombudsman found it appropriate to refer the gentleman BACK to the complaints system, when he’d already aired the matter extensively with the council’s staff in the summer. The test for the Ombudsman is this:
Local Government Act 1974
s26(5) Before proceeding to investigate a matter, a Local Commissioner shall satisfy himself that
(a) the matter has been brought, by or on behalf of the person affected], to the notice of the authority to which it relates and that that authority has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to investigate the matter and to respond; or
(b) in the particular circumstances, it is not reasonable to expect the matter to be brought to the notice of that authority or for that authority to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to investigate the matter and to respond.
If you are affected by the issues in this report, please consider asking us a free One-off Question, at a level of principle, here. Our experts’ opinions get posted in the end, which is part of the community benefit which we offer as a CIC.
The full Local Government Ombudsman report on the actions of City of York Council can be found here: https://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/adult-care-services/direct-payments/23-013-454
Did you enjoy this analysis? Stay informed with our weekly Alert Service!
Click here to find out more about getting the latest insights straight to your inbox or WhatsApp! For just £30 per person per YEAR, stay updated on key judicial decisions, ombudsmen’s reports, and critical law and policy changes from top experts and commentators.