Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council charging his sister, Ms C for care she should not have paid. This is because the Council has reassessed Mrs C’s finances and repaid all monies owed. There is no unremedied injustice warranting an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr B says the Council should not have increased his sister’s, Mrs C’s care charges before doing a full financial assessment. Mr B says Mrs C was very worried when she received a letter saying her contribution towards her care package had increased from £4.24 a week to £11.15, an increase of 163%. Mr B says although the Council has now reimbursed Mrs C’s overpayment, he is concerned this is happening to other clients.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr B and the Council provided. I sent Mr B a copy of my draft decision and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B is unhappy with the way the Council assessed Mrs C’s finances for 2018/19.
5. The Council explained it reviews the level of contribution each person makes in line with the increase percentage in state benefits and sends clients a letter advising of changes due to the automated annual uplift process. The Ombudsman could not say this is fault.
6. Mr B complained to the Council and it reassessed Mrs C’s finances. It said on investigation it found Mrs C’s savings had fallen below the threshold of £14250 and there were small changes in her expenditure. Mrs C’s contribution to her care package was reduced to a nil charge and the Council said it will backdate the assessment to April 2018 and reimburse any payments Mrs C made from that date. The Council has confirmed it has now reimbursed the £253.93 Mrs C paid.
7. Mr B is concerned other council clients may not know about the automated uplift. The Council explained when it sends out the automated uplift letter to clients it invites them to contact it to request a new financial assessment if they think the new assessment is incorrect or their financial circumstances have changed. This was the situation in Mrs C’s case. The Council has reassessed Mrs C’s finances, determined she should not have contributed towards her care costs, backdated the assessment to the date her finances fell below the threshold and repaid the monies she had paid. There is no ongoing injustice to Mrs C warranting an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has reassessed Mrs C’s finances and repaid all monies owed. There is no unremedied injustice warranting an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman