Summary: Mrs C complains about the way the Council provided information about her son’s care costs before he moved to supported living accommodation. Mrs C says her son faced an unexpected and large increase in his outgoings which caused him significant upset and contributed to a suicide attempt which has caused long-term damage to his health. We have found no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs C, complains on behalf of her son that he did not receive a written assessment of his care costs before moving to supported living accommodation. Mrs C says she was initially told an assessment could not be done without information about his outgoings and benefits despite this information being available. Mrs C also says she was told the cost would stay the same or reduce and be capped at about £63 per week but this increased to about £125 per week after her son had moved.
2. Mrs C says because of the Council’s fault, her son faced an unexpected and large increase in his outgoings which caused him significant upset and contributed to a suicide attempt which has caused long-term damage to his health. Mrs C says if her son had known the costs involved, he would have decided not to move to the accommodation.

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, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read the papers provided by Mrs C and discussed the complaint with her. I considered some information from the Council and provided a copy of this to Mrs C.
6. I have explained my draft decision to Mrs C and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

7. The Care Act 2014 says councils can make charges for care and support services they provide or arrange. Charges may only cover the cost the council incurs. Councils must assess a person’s finances to decide what contribution they should make to their personal budget for care.
8. The charging rules for residential care are set out in the “Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014”, and the “Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014”. When a council arranges a placement, it has to follow these rules when undertaking a financial assessment to decide how much a person has to pay towards the costs of their care.

Key events

9. Mrs C’s son was living at home with his family but was due to move into supported living accommodation. It was agreed some support should be provided ahead of the move to help with the transition. A financial assessment was required as there had not been a previous care package.
10. The Council assessed Mrs C’s son had a weekly income of £62.25 available for charging in May 2019.
11. Mrs C sent an email to her son’s social worker in July asking about the impact of an increase in her son’s benefits when he moved and if this would cover all the necessary support services and so leave him in the same financial position. The social worker replied to say Mrs C’s son may be assessed as a nil cost payer or assessed as paying a low contribution which would usually be capped but this would not be known until a financial assessment had been completed.
12. The Council completed a telephone provisional financial assessment with Mrs C in July for her son. This set out Mrs C’s son would have a weekly income of £128.10 available for charging due to the addition of a severe disability premium to his Employment Support Allowance.
13. The Council provided a copy of the above provisional financial assessment to Mrs C on 13 August 2019. The social worker also emailed Mrs C to confirm the previous capped charge of £62.25 would increase to £128.10 per week.
14. Mrs C made two calls to the Council following receipt of the above assessment in August. The Council has provided a recording of both these calls and I set out key details for each below.
15. The first call is dated 19 August. Mrs C refers to the above financial assessment and wanted to correct some information. Mrs C explained savings were shown as £500 but this was incorrect as her son had no savings. The call handler updated the assessment to show no capital or savings and confirmed this would make no difference to the overall assessment as the savings originally noted were already below the relevant threshold. Mrs C asked if the assessment would remain the same when her son moved. The call handler confirmed the assessment was provisional but was based on when her son moved as it included his predicted severe disability premium to his Employment Support Allowance which could be claimed once he moved. Mrs C set out her understanding that the charges would remain capped at £62. The call handler confirmed this would not be the case and charges would be capped at £128.10 after the move although this amount did not take account of any other costs. The call handler suggested the only items that could reduce the £128.10 cost when Mrs C’s son moved would be rent and/or council tax and disability related expenditure such as laundry.
16. The second call is dated 27 August. Mrs C says the weekly Employment Support Allowance is incorrect on the assessment. The call handler says this amount includes the predicted award of the severe disability premium and reminded Mrs C of when they last spoke when it had been explained the assessment was provisional for when her son moved. Mrs C again sought confirmation the costs would be capped at £62 a week when her son moved. The call handler confirmed this would not be the case and was only while her son was living at home. The call handler sets out that the costs were currently assessed as being capped at £128.10 for after the move but this could change once other bills were known. The call handler asks if Mrs C knows what the costs would be and suggests she obtains a breakdown of the rent and bills. The call handler makes clear bills for food, petrol, car insurance would all come out of her son’s available weekly allowance. The only difference after moving would be any shortfall between rent and housing benefit. Mrs C stated she did not expect such a shortfall and so the amount would not reduce and she was concerned about what her son would have left to live on as she estimated his other bills would be £280 per month plus food. The call hander reminded Mrs C that the available allowance was weekly and so her son would have about £600 each month. Mrs C says she understood her son would have to pay something towards his care but she had been using £62 per week as a worst case scenario.
17. Mrs C’s son moved to the supported accommodation in December 2019.
18. Based on the information provided, I am satisfied the Council completed a provisional financial assessment for Mrs C’s son and provided a copy of this to Mrs C in August. This information set out that the capped cost would provisionally be £128.10 rather than the £62.25 Mrs C’s son was paying while living with his family. This change was also explained to Mrs C during two telephone calls in August. It is clear Mrs C was aware of the increased costs involved some months before her son moved to his supported living accommodation in December. I have seen no evidence to suggest Mrs C was provided with incorrect or misleading information about the likely increase in costs which can reasonably be said to have affected the decision to move.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have completed my investigation as I have found no evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman