The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms B complained about the way the Council handled a credit on her direct payment account. It did not credit a payment she made to the account and then instructed a debt collection agency who visited her home. She further complained about the way the Council responded after the visit and handled her complaint. She said the events caused her stress and worry. There was fault for which the Council will apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice caused.
The complaint
I refer to the complainant as Ms B. She complained about the way the Council handled a credit on her direct payment account. It did not credit a payment she made to the account and then instructed a debt collection agency who visited her home. She further complained about the way the Council responded after the visit and handled her complaint. She said the events caused her stress and worry.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered the complaint and documents provided by Ms B and spoke to her. I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. I sent a draft of this statement to Ms B and the Council and considered their comments.
What I found
Ms B has adult social care needs and receives direct payments from the Council to enable her to arrange her own care and support. In September 2020 the Council invoiced Ms B because there was a large credit on her direct payment account. Ms B did not receive the invoice or any of the follow up chasing letters.
In January 2021 the Council passed the matter to a debt collection agency (the Agency) who also wrote to Ms B. Again Ms B did not receive any of that correspondence. In August a representative of the Agency visited Ms B’s home. She was in the bath at the time and her support worker answered the door.
Ms B then contacted the Council to complain about the visit. The Council responded at both stages of its complaint procedure. It found that Ms B had made a payment in January of more than the invoiced amount. Ms B said she enclosed a letter with the payment explaining the payment was because there was a surplus on her direct payment account. The Council said it had not been able to trace the letter and therefore paid the money into a suspense account. It said it would not normally pass debts that relate to adult social care to a debt collection agency but mistakenly did so in this, and other cases. In responding to the complaint an officer watched the bodycam footage of the agent who went to Ms B’s home. They did not consider their conduct to be unsatisfactory.
Ms B was not satisfied and complained to us.
Analysis The Council accepted there were mistakes and apologised to Ms B. It also offered a payment of £150 but that was mainly for the delay in issuing a stage two complaint response.
I cannot say why Ms B did not receive any of the letters chasing up the payment for the invoice. They appear to be correctly addressed. But I cannot say there was any fault by the Council in issuing the correspondence.
On the balance of probabilities I consider Ms B will have included a letter when she made the payment in January but somehow it became detached so the Council did not allocate the money to her account. There was then further fault when the account was wrongly passed to the agents for recovery action.
I have watched the recording of the visit by the enforcement agent and there was no inappropriate action or comment by the officer.
Even though I do not consider there was any fault in the conduct of the enforcement agent I accept it will still have been distressing for Ms B. This distress was compounded by the delay in the Council telling her that the account was clear and there would be no further visits from the enforcement agents.
Where there has been fault we ask the Council to provide remedy for the injustice caused to the complainant. The £150 offered for the delay in the complaint handling is fair. But there should be a further payment for the stress caused by the enforcement agent visit which was then compounded by the delay in giving the necessary reassurances to Ms B. The Council has agreed to pay her an additional £200.
I understand Ms B is concerned that this was an example of a wider pattern of action by the Council to target her, particularly if she raises a complaint. I have seen the internal email correspondence between the officers. There is nothing in that to suggest there was any deliberate acts. Rather there were a series of errors and then a lack of ownership when Ms B complained.
The Council has said it has taken action to ensure that ASC cases are not passed to enforcement agents and that queries on unidentified payments are sent to a central mailbox.
Agreed action
The Council will, within a month of the decision, apologise to Ms B and pay her £350. That is £200 I have identified here and the £150 which Ms B had not accepted as she wished to pursue her complaint with the Ombudsman.
Final decision
There was fault which caused injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman