Summary: Mr X complains that the Council wrongly told him it would stop funding care for his mother. Mr X says that this statement, which the Council accepts was incorrect, prompted him to give up his job to care for his mother. He said the family were caused distress and anxiety. The Council was at fault for misinforming Mr X. Following Ombudsman involvement, it has offered a remedy which we consider appropriate.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I have called Mr X, complains the Council wrongly told him it would stop funding care for his mother. Mr X says this caused him distress and anxiety and he felt obliged to give up work as he expected he would have to look after his mother himself.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. 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)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. We examined the complaint file and made enquiries with the Council. Both the complainant and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before issuing this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X’s parents, who lived in their own home, needed social care. The Council paid towards a live-in carer providing care for them both. Sadly, Mr X’s father died. That meant, the joint care arrangements no longer applied. The Council should then have considered how to meet Mr X’s mother’s care needs and, having decided that, should have done any necessary financial assessment to establish how much the Council should pay towards the care costs.
6. Instead, a Council social worker, SW1, emailed Mr X shortly after his father’s death, saying:

‘…from this point on, the full cost of the live-in care will need to be paid by your mother…you have the right to appeal this decision via the council’s appeal process… the council will fund the live-in care up to today’s date, but that going forward your mum will need to pay (to be arranged by you as her deputy) the costs or privately move into a residential dementia home…’

7. That was inaccurate because the Council had made no such decision and any decision about funding Mrs X’s future care would have to be based on a proper consideration of what was needed. The Council now accepts it was at fault for sending that email, which the Council acknowledges would have caused ‘a great deal of concern and distress’.
8. After receiving the email, Mr X asked for clarification. He specifically asked if the Council was saying it would not pay anything towards his mother’s care. SW1 said that was the case. She said she had been advised by her manager to pass this information on.
9. In another email later that day SW1 again affirmed that the Council would not fund Mr X’s mother’s care. She said she would let her manager, Ms P, know that Mr X had found this information distressing.
10. Mr X said that it was his understanding that, “…surely you have a responsibility for part funding care and we top up?”
11. The social worker again said she would refer to Ms P. Initially, Mr X said he looked forward to speaking with Ms P. But he changed his mind and said he had contacted his solicitor and a local newspaper. He asked that the Council would ‘just answer my question’.
12. Ms P tried to contact Mr X again that day. She said she would like to discuss the “…next steps which need to happen before any appeals process is actioned.”
13. The same day, Ms P actioned an application to the Council’s Complex Case Panel to approve funding for social care and equity release.
14. Mr X said he did not want to talk with Ms P. He said he wanted to grieve for his father and asked not to be contacted.
15. Ms P responded that she appreciated Mr X needed time. She said the Council had agreed to fund his mother’s live-in care for a further four weeks to allow time for the funeral and to go through the necessary arrangements to look at his mother’s longer-term needs.
16. The Council complaints officer also emailed Mr X to say that “…further work is needed before a decision can be made about [Mr X’s mother’s] long term care and needs.” He was told that once a decision had been made, he would be told about the appeals process.
17. Mr X says the Council’s initial email saying it would stop funding caused him to leave his job because he expected he would have to look after his mother himself. He states that was because he had promised his mother she would not move into a care home but he knew the family could not afford live-in care without a Council contribution.
18. Mr X did not leave his job immediately on receiving the initial email but several months later. By the time he left his job, the Council had told him it would extend the funding for the live-in carer until it had considered future arrangements. Mr X said the Council had not explained that its statement in the initial email that it would not pay for his mother’s care was incorrect so he assumed the extension of funding was just temporary and that the Council’s substantive position remained that it would stop paying for the carer. As it transpired the Council did not stop funding the care, Mr X wants the Council to reimburse the earnings he lost from leaving his job.

Back to top

Analysis

19. The Ombudsman would only ask a council to provide a remedy for the direct consequences of its fault. Here, it was not the Council’s responsibility that Mr X had told his mother she would not need to go into residential care. More importantly, when Mr X left his job, he had not discussed future care arrangements substantively with the Council. He knew from the initial email that he would have an appeal right against any decision to end funding so the Council’s position might change. He knew the Council had not in fact ended funding when it had said it would and he knew the Council was extending the funding until it could meet him to discuss future arrangements.
20. So, I am not persuaded that Mr X could have reasonably concluded the Council would inevitably stop all funding for his mother’s care. I do not therefore consider the Council’s fault – the inaccurate initial email –caused Mr X to leave his job. So, I do not propose to ask the Council to reimburse any lost earnings.
21. However, the Council could have been clearer in its communications with Mr X. It initially told him a decision had been made that he could challenge. When Ms P contacted him by email, she said she needed to discuss next steps before any appeal. The Council’s complaints officer then told him no decision had been made and he would be given information about an appeal when it had.
22. The Council invited Mr X to call if he had any questions, but he did not do so. Clearly, the Council could have communicated better with him but if Mr X had called the Council, the confusion would not have continued.
23. The Council has recognised the distress it has caused and offered a payment of £500 to Mr X. I am satisfied that is a reasonable sum in recognition of the distress caused. The Council says it is already taking steps to ensure that managers investigating and responding to complaints refer to the relevant guidance on good practice.

Recommended/ agreed action

24. Within one month of my final decision, the Council should:
1. Apologise again to Mr X for failing to properly acknowledge the upset caused by its approach at an earlier stage.
2. Pay Mr X the sum of £500 in recognition of the distress caused by its poor communication.

Back to top

Final decision

25. The Council has accepted it is at fault and has offered a remedy that I consider is reasonable. I have therefore completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman