Summary: Mr P complains the Council has failed to fulfil the remedy on his previous complaint properly, having done so in a way which financially disadvantages him. The Council accepts its July 2019 decision to backdate his financial contribution for residential care to 31 July 2017 will have prevented him from managing his expenses within his personal expenses allowance. It has offered to pay Mr P a further £20,410. This will remedy the injustice it has caused.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr P, complains the Council has failed to fulfil the remedy on his previous complaint properly, having done so in a way which financially disadvantages him.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated the Council’s decision to backdate the full charge for Mr P’s care to 31 July 2017.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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, sections 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
5. Before investigating a complaint we must normally be satisfied a council has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr P;
• discussed the complaint with Mr P;
• considered the comments and documents the Council has provided in response to my enquiries; and
• shared a draft of this statement with Mr P and the Council, and invited comments for me to consider before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. Because of Mr P’s previous complaint, which we completed in May 2019, the Council agreed to backdate its funding for Mr P’s placement in a care home to the date his capital fell below £23,250 (the threshold for council funding).
8. Mr P moved to the care home in 2012 and funded his placement himself. He contacted the Council on 12 February 2018 for help, as his capital had fallen below £15,000. He was paying £677 a week.
9. There was a long dispute over whether Mr P needed to live in a care home which was finally resolved in May 2019 when the Council agreed that he did.
10. From 8 May 2018 the Council part funded Mr P’s placement (at first £474 a week, rising to £493.15 from 1 April 2019) leaving him to pay the difference.
11. On 15 April 2019 the Council told Mr X he would have to pay £142.35 a week towards his “short stay respite residential care” from 6 May 2018. It said this decision reflected the information in his care plan and financial assessment of 15 February 2019. It said the amount he had to pay may change if there had been any changes to his care plan or financial circumstances after this date. Mr P’s financial assessment refers to a minimum charge of £167.25, less the personal expenses allowance of £24.90.
12. When the Council backdated its funding, it did this on the basis Mr P had been a permanent resident since 31 July 2017, the date his capital fell below £23,250. It agreed to fund the full cost of his placement, less his assessed weekly contribution. It told Mr P about his assessed weekly contribution in July 2019:
• £385.10 from 31 July 2017 to 27 August 2017
• £329.46 from 28 August 2017 to 6 May 2018
• £338.86 from 7 May 2018 to 5 May 2019
• £353.54 from 6 May 2019 to 30 June 2019
13. The Council has given Mr P a personal expenses allowance of £59.67 a week:
• £24.90 minimum allowance under the Care & Support Statutory Guidance;
• £14.77 for life insurance/funeral plan; and
• £20.00 for activities to support mental health and emotional wellbeing.
14. It did not agree to include £70 a week to keep a car, £20 for meal out, or £10 for gifting. Mr P says he has complained to the Council about this, but the Council denies receiving his complaint.
15. The Council eventually refunded £5,777.69 to Mr P, which reflected the fact he had been fully funding his placement until May 2018.
16. The Council says it charged customers a minimum charge of £134.40 a week from 8 May 2017 until completion of a financial assessment and would advise them “You should be aware that your contribution may increase after your financial assessment is completed”.
17. The Council accepts there was a delay in telling Mr P of his assessed weekly contribution which will have impacted on his ability to budget. This includes managing with his personal expenses allowance the fact he stopped being eligible for Attendance Allowance and had to repay £2,063 to the Department of Work and Pensions. To remedy the injustice caused by this, the Council has offered to cap Mr P’s weekly contribution at the minimum rate £134.40 a week from 31 July 2017 to 30 June 2019 and pay him a further rebate £20,410. The Council says it will have to do a new financial assessment to decide how the payment impacts on Mr P’s future payments. For instance, it could result in him becoming a self-funder again if it took his capital over £23,250, although Mr P says this will not be the case because of debts on his credit card.

Is there evidence of fault by the Council which caused injustice?

18. In April 2019 the Council did not tell Mr P the charge of £142.35 a week was subject to a further financial assessment. It was not until July 2019 that it told Mr P what it was going to charge him for his care. That was fault by the Council. The Council accepts backdating the full charge to July 2017 will have prevented Mr P from managing his expenses within his personal expenses allowance. It has therefore offered to pay him a further £20,410. This will remedy the injustice it has caused as this will increase Mr P’s capital to substantially more than when he first complained. It will also provide some additional redress for the distress he has experienced.

Back to top

Agreed action

19. The Council has offered to pay Mr P a further £20,410.00 in addition to the £5,777.69 it has already paid. It needs to do this within four weeks of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I have completed my investigation as the Council has agreed to take action which will remedy the injustice it has caused.

Parts of the complaint I did not investigate

21. I have not investigated Mr P’s complaint about the Council’s decision to restrict his personal expenses allowance to £59.67 a week which will still apply from 1 July 2019. Because of the restriction in paragraph 5 above, Mr P needs to complete the Council’s complaints procedure before we can investigate that complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman