Wiltshire County Council (05B12629)
Adult care services Maladministration causing injustice
30 April 2007
Mr Carter’s wife was admitted to nursing care from hospital in May 2003, suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. At the time, she had sufficient savings to fund her own stay there, but it was expected that she would eventually need state funding. The Council gave Mr Carter an explanation, both verbally and in writing, of the financial help that might be available from Social Services when her savings dropped to the appropriate level. During the summer of 2003, the family took financial advice and identified a financial care plan that could be purchased from Mrs Carter’s remaining savings and that would have paid approximately half of the nursing home fees for the remainder of her life: but that would have brought her savings below the level at which she would qualify for state funding.
Mr Carter enquired whether the Council would consider Mrs Carter to have deprived herself of an asset. Although the Council told him, in writing, that it would not take this view, and that Social Services would contribute to the cost of Mrs Carter’s care when the plan was in place, it did not provide any figures to indicate how much that contribution might be.
In fact, the nursing home chosen for Mrs Carter charged fees which were above the local limit set by Social Services, and Mr Carter found that he was expected to meet this excess from his own personal funds. He complained that he and his son had never been advised of this and that, had they understood this to be the case from the outset, they would probably have chosen a different investment plan. Mr Carter says that, depending upon how long his wife requires help, he expects he will make a financial loss as a result.
The Ombudsman found that a leaflet sent to Mr Carter soon after his wife entered the nursing home was not misleading in itself; although he felt that it would have been much clearer if a worked example, showing how far Social Services could fund placements, had been given. He considered the information given to be too general to be of use to Mr Carter at a time when he and his son were known to be contemplating making a significant financial commitment of both his own and his wife’s funds.
The Council should have told him clearly, and in writing, the approximate level of support he would receive and that he was understood to be capable of making top-up payments which amounted to almost £200 a week. But due to the involvement of an Independent Financial Adviser, whose actions he was unable to consider, the Ombudsman did not find that any financial loss Mr Carter might suffer from purchasing an inappropriate product was wholly or mainly the fault of the Council.
The Council had already paid Mr Carter £150 for the delay in dealing with his complaint, and has agreed to top this up with a further £1,000 and an apology for the failure to tell him, clearly and in writing at the time when he needed it, the likely level at which the Council would be able to contribute to Mrs Carter’s nursing home fees.
Date Published: 28/10/08