Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council charged Mr X for respite care when she had been told it would pay for it. This caused them stress and anxiety. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault and it has agreed to waive 50% of the charges for the respite care.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complains on behalf of her husband Mr X. She complains that the Council charged Mr X for respite care in 2018 when she had been advised that the Council would pay for it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’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)
4. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended). Mr X has given consent for Mrs X to bring this complaint on his behalf.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from the Complainant and from the Council.
6. I sent both parties a copy of my draft decision for comment and took account of the comments I received in response.

Back to top

What I found

Background

What happened

7. Early in July 2018, the Council placed Mr X in a temporary 12 week placement at a residential care home because his carer was unable to continue caring for him. Mr X stayed there for ten weeks. Council records note that, just over a week after the placement began, Mr X advised the social worker that he had capital below the threshold and she arranged for a financial assessment. The Council says she explained the charging policy.
8. Mrs X has provided a “Deed of Acknowledgement” dated at the start of the placement setting out the terms. This says “the Local Authority has agreed to fund the care of the Resident”.
9. The financial assessment took place in August, after Mr X had been at the home for around four weeks. Mr X provided details of his current and savings account balances, income and expenditure. The assessment found Mr X would have to pay £164.08 weekly. The Council has a copy of this assessment signed by Mr X.
10. In October, Mrs X complained to the Council about the invoice Mr X had received for this stay as Mr X was not aware he would be charged.

Was there fault which caused injustice?

11. The Council has given conflicting information to Mr X and it is at fault here. This caused Mr and Mrs X stress and anxiety.
12. Although Mr X had capital below the threshold, he was required to contribute towards his care. This would have been clear had the “Deed of Acknowledgement” not contained incorrect information. I am satisfied that by the time the financial assessment was completed and the outcome letter issued in August, Mr X should have been clear that the Council expected him to pay £164.08 weekly. However, before this, it was understandable that he expected the Council to pay.

Agreed action

13. To remedy the injustice identified above, I recommended the Council:
• Apologise to Mr and Mrs X in writing.
• Waive 50% of Mr X’s contribution to this placement.
• Review the use of the “Deed of Acknowledgement” and ensure it does not give conflicting information to people in future.
14. The Council should complete these actions within two months of the final decision and provide evidence of this to the Ombudsman. Suitable evidence would include:
• A copy of the apology letter.
• Confirmation of the 50% waiver.
• Details of action taken regarding the “Deed of Acknowledgement”.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mrs X’s complaint that the Council charged Mr X for respite care in 2018 when she had been advised that the Council would pay for it. The Council will remedy the injustice caused by completing the agreed actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman