Ombudsman warns on financial appointee role after council told to repay £12k

A local authority has agreed to repay nearly £12,000 to a disabled woman for whom it was acting as financial appointee, following an investigation by the Local Government Ombudsman.

The LGO said Halton Borough Council had failed to deal properly with the woman’s (Miss Y’s) finances for more than seven years.

The Ombudsman also found that the failure of Halton to maintain transparent records of how it was dealing with Miss Y’s money meant the council was unable to demonstrate it was acting in her best interests when it did receive complaints from the family.

The borough council first became involved with Miss Y’s finances when she moved into supported accommodation in 2002. Halton became her appointee as her family lived some distance away.

According to the LGO report, between 2006 and 2013 the woman shared supported accommodation with one or two others and for most of that time she received housing benefit and income support.

When the council first became appointee, it paid the accommodation’s joint utility bills from a general account and reclaimed contributions from each resident. After 2008 it took the water bill and TV licence fee in full from the woman’s account and repaid her when it collected contributions from the other residents.

The LGO noted that when the council experienced increasing difficulties collecting other residents’ shares it changed the arrangement and passed the responsibility for the bills to the care provider. The council continued to pay the water bill and TV licence in full from the woman’s account.

The investigation found that whilst acting as appointee Halton failed to identify that the woman was being overpaid income support. The council also miscalculated Miss Y’s entitlement to housing benefit, which also resulted in an overpayment.

When both of these errors came to light the council repaid the amounts, leaving her with nothing in her account when the family took over her finances again.

The woman’s sister, Ms X, made numerous complaints to the council and, the LGO said, had to pursue the council "relentlessly" for answers before she brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

To remedy the injustice caused, the Ombudsman recommended that Halton should:

• apologise to Ms X for the failures identified which affected both Ms X and Miss Y;
• repay £11,700 to Miss Y to put her back in the position she was in before it miscalculated her housing benefit overpayment. The LGO said the council had already acknowledged its error here and hads repaid Miss Y;
• refund to Miss Y the appointee charges applied from January 2006 until it stopped being her appointee, in recognition of its failure to manage her money properly;
• reimburse Miss Y with the £400 she overpaid for her bills;
• reimburse Ms X with the £292.75 which she spent on clothes for Miss Y;
• pay £500 to Ms X for the avoidable distress, time and trouble it caused her;
• arrange an independent, external process to review its practices in light of the Ombudsman's report for the existing 17 service users for whom the council is currently appointee and who live in a house of multiple occupation (HMO) with people for whom the council is not appointee. "In view of the risks to service users, this should take place as soon as possible to ensure that any safeguarding concerns are acted on at the earliest opportunity", the LGO said;
• make sure it has arrangements in place to: ensure it has more robust ways of dealing with bill payments for service users; ensure it has a quality assurance and monitoring system in place to consider its practice in those cases where it is appointee ("this should include best interests decisions which the appointee relies on to make payments"); ensure relevant staff receive training in appointeeship, mental capacity, best interests and safeguarding adults so that decisions about people’s money are properly made ("also set up routine refresher training for those staff"); ensure that people in supported accommodation have a fair and accountable system to pay for communal goods; review its complaints process and training in the light of these events to ensure it deals with future complaints more effectively; and develop guidance to providers on holiday planning for service users.

The LGO said Halton should confirm it has taken this action within three months of the date of the report.

The Ombudsman said families needed to have confidence that councils were protecting the interests of their loved ones when acting as financial appointees.

Dr Jane Martin, Local Government Ombudsman, said: “When acting as financial appointees, councils hold full responsibility for managing the finances of vulnerable people. Their families have every right to believe they should be acting in their relatives’ best interests.

“In this position of trust, councils need to make sure they manage those people’s finances in an effective, accountable and transparent way.

“I am pleased Halton Council has already made a number of changes to its policies and procedures in light of my report and would encourage other councils to look at their own policies to ensure they are dealing fairly with the people for whom they are acting.”