Summary: There was fault in the Council’s letters about charging, there was poor communication with Miss B and its charging policy was unclear and out of date. The Council also failed to provide certain documents and information to Miss B or provided the documents late. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss B and carry out service improvements.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains on behalf of her mother, Mrs C who does not have the mental capacity to make the complaint.
2. Miss B complains about the Council’s financial assessment, its communication with her, its failure to provide documents, the wording of its charging policy and its decision that she has acquired ordinary residence in another council’s area.
3. Miss B complains the Council has consistently failed to provide statutory information relevant to Mrs C’s needs and care or to explain why the information was withheld.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have investigated Miss B’s complaint except for the complaint about ordinary residence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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

7. I have discussed the complaint with Miss B. I have considered the documents she and the Council have sent, the relevant law, guidance and policies and both sides’ comments on the draft decision.

What I found

Law, guidance and policies

8. The Care Act 2014, the Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014 (updated 2017) and the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 set out the Council’s duties towards adults who require care and support and its powers to charge. The Council also has its own policies.

Assessment of needs and care plan

9. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require local authorities to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. They must provide an assessment to all people regardless of their finances or whether the local authority thinks an individual has eligible needs.
10. If the needs assessment identifies eligible needs, the Council will provide a support plan which outlines what services are required to meet the needs. Everyone whose needs are met by the local authority must receive a personal budget as part of the care plan.

Principles of charging

11. The Guidance says the approach to charging should (among other things) be ‘clear and transparent so that people know what they will be charged.’

Capital

12. The funding rules are complex, but for the purpose of this complaint, it is sufficient to say that the upper capital limit for council funding for residential care is £23,250. Therefore, if a person has eligible capital over £23,250, then, generally speaking, they will have to pay for their own care.

12-week property disregard

13. If the home is included in the calculation of capital, a local authority must disregard the value of their main or only home for the first 12 weeks when the person first enters a care home as a permanent resident. This is known as the 12-week property disregard.

Income

14. Even if a person’s capital is below £23,250, residents may also have to pay a contribution from their income towards the fees.
15. Councils must assess a person’s finances to decide what contribution he or she should make to a personal budget for care.

Self-funders

16. A person with capital over the upper capital limit (self-funders) can ask their local authority to arrange their care and support for them. A local authority may choose to meet those needs and arrange the care, but it is not required to do so.
17. However, these people are not entitled to receive any financial assistance from their local authority and in any case, may pay the full cost of their care and support until their capital falls below the upper capital limit.

Deferred payment agreement (DPA)

18. Deferred payment agreements are designed to prevent people from being forced to sell their home in their lifetime to meet the cost of their care. 
19. Councils must offer residents in care homes a deferred payment agreement if certain conditions are met. One of those conditions is that the person has less than £23,250 in capital assets excluding the value of their main or only home.
20. A local authority may refuse a deferred payment agreement if it is unable to secure a first charge on the person’s property.
21. The Guidance says local authorities should provide information and advice on DPAs at the earliest appropriate opportunity during the period of the 12-week disregard. Local authorities should aim for a smooth transition from the 12-week disregard to the DPA if they opt to enter into an agreement. This means ensuring as far as possible that a DPA is available by the first day of week 13.

Respite care

22. Where a person is a short-term or temporary resident in a care home, there is a degree of discretion or modified charging rules to take account of this.
23. A short-term resident is someone provided with accommodation in a care home for a period not exceeding 8 weeks, for example where a person is placed in a care home to provide respite care. Where a person is a short-term resident a local authority may choose to assess and charge them based on the rules for care or support arranged other than in a care home.

Mental capacity

24. Mental capacity is the ability to make a decision. Under the 2005 Mental Capacity Act, a person lacks capacity in relation to a matter if, at the material time, they are unable to make a decision in relation to the matter because of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain.
25. Where there is concern about a person’s capacity to make a specific decision, then an assessment of capacity should be carried out under the Mental Capacity Act.
26. Where an individual has been assessed as lacking capacity to make a particular decision, then the local authority must commence care planning in the person’s best interests under the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act. 

Ordinary residence

27. The law sets out the procedures local authorities must follow when disputes arise between them about a person’s ordinary residence. They must first take all reasonable steps to resolve the dispute between themselves.
28. If they cannot resolve the dispute, then the local authority makes an application in writing to the Secretary of State to make a determination of ordinary residence.

Council’s policies

29. The Council’s residential charging policy says:
30. ‘If you are staying in a care home on a permanent basis (excluding residential rehabilitation stays) we will charge you a set amount (Light Touch Assessment) for the first four weeks (Appendix D) and then complete a financial assessment after this period as below in Section 9:
• If you have access to savings and investments that are above £23,250, you will need to arrange to be placed in a care home yourself (unless you do not have the mental capacity to do this yourself). If you choose a care home in our area you can contact us when your savings and investments drop below £23,250. If the care home you choose in is another Council’s area, you will need to contact that Council when your savings drop below £23,250.
• If you have less than £23,250 in savings and investments (not including your main home), we will charge you a set fee (Light Touch Assessment) for the first four weeks (Appendix C) and financially assess you after this period.
31. Section 9 says: ‘After your first four weeks of staying in a care home on a permanent basis, we will financially assess you and base our charges on the outcome. We will assess all the eligible income you receive and leave you with a set amount as a Personal Expenses Allowance (PEA).
32. Appendix C relates to ‘short term/respite light touch charges’ and appendix D relates to ‘permanent light touch charges’. Appendix C says the weekly charge for a person of pensionable age is £138.10. Appendix D sets out the charges depending on what the benefit income of the person is.
33. Section 13 says: ‘When you have been placed in a care home, we will supply you… with a breakdown of how we have calculated your charges.’
34. The Council’s adult social care procedures say:
• Both the upper and lower limits must be applied to persons in residential care, meaning that the Council is precluded from providing residential care funding for persons with capital over £23,250.

What happened

35. Mrs C is an elderly woman who used to live at home. She had vascular dementia and received care from Miss B as well as support by an agency (three visits a week) which she self-funded.
36. Miss B has Lasting Powers of Attorney for property and financial affairs and health and welfare for Mrs C as Mrs C lacks the mental capacity to make decisions in these matters.
37. Miss B contacted the Council on 31 December 2019 as she felt that Mrs C’s condition was deteriorating and she may need 24 hour care.
38. The social worker visited Mrs C on 31 January 2020. The social worker said Mrs C had some understanding of her care and support needs but it was limited. Mrs C said she wanted to live at home. The social worker said she would visit again in a couple of weeks to ‘look at a Care Act assessment and LA funded package of care and to also conduct further capacity assessment.’
39. The social worker visited Mrs C again on 21 February 2021 and completed the needs assessment on 28 February 2020. She said there had been a clear decline in Mrs C’s dementia so she now needed support at the weekends in addition to the support package she was already receiving. It was noted on the form that Mrs C was a home owner.
40. The Council’s finance team wrote to Miss B on 26 February 2020 and said it had not been able to assess Mrs C’s contribution to her care costs as Miss B had not sent back the financial assessment form.
41. Miss B attended the office on 6 March 2020 to sign off the care package, but she said the documents were not ready and the Council could still not tell her what the hourly rate was.
42. Miss B wrote to the Council and said she worked on the assumption that Mrs C would have to pay for the care package and wanted to find out what the cost of the care package was. Neither the social worker, nor the finance officer were able to answer this question, despite repeated requests by Miss B.
43. The Council wrote to Miss B on 12 March 2020 as she had not sent the financial assessment form back yet.
44. Miss B wrote to the Council on 16 March 2020. She said she had asked the social worker what the hourly cost would be ‘assuming the likelihood that my mother would have to pay the full cost.’ She said that, if the Council’s cost was higher than the agency she used, then there seemed little point in continuing the process.
45. She said the social worker told her on 6 March 2020 that she would find out the hourly cost from the agency, but then sent Miss B the details of the agency so she could contact them directly. Miss B said she emailed the agency. The agency replied but did not provide meaningful information. but
46. The Council had difficulty finding an agency which would provide the additional care. Also, the Council said that, as Miss B had not completed the financial assessment, Mrs C would have to self-fund her care package.
47. On 15 April 2020, Miss B spoke to the social worker. Miss B had been told to self-isolate because of Covid-19 which meant that she would not be able to provide care to Mrs C anymore. Miss B felt that a 24-hour care setting would be in Mrs C’s best interest.
48. The social worker agreed Mrs C should move to a care home, for a respite stay of 12 weeks.
49. Miss B sent an email on the same day and attached a list of care homes in a neighbouring council’s area. She said she had looked at this list and preferred two of the homes, as they had good CQC reports and were close by. She dismissed one of the homes on the list because it had a negative CQC report and said some of the homes were quite far to travel but she would accept them as ‘any port in a storm
50. The social worker emailed Miss B on the same day. She said she had sent requests for care home vacancies and was waiting to hear back. A generic search of respite places in Manchester and the neighbouring council was also taking place. The social worker said a lot of care homes were not accepting new residents because of Covid.
51. The social worker contacted one of the preferred homes that Miss B had mentioned on the list she had sent and found a place for Mrs C in that home (care home K).
52. On 21 April 2020, the social worker spoke to Miss B to discuss the funding of the placement. She explained the contribution and the top-up fee. However, on the following day, the Council then obtained Covid funding for the placement for the first four weeks.
53. Mrs C moved into care home K on 24 April 2020.
54. The social worker spoke to Miss B on 14 May 2020. She said that they were considering whether the care home should be a long-term option. She said she would carry out a mental capacity assessment of Mrs C so a best interest decision could be made about the long term options for Mrs C.
55. The social worker carried out a mental capacity assessment of Mrs C on 14 May 2020 and said Mrs C did not have the capacity to make decisions about where she should live.
56. The social worker spoke to Miss B and the care home manager on 15 May 2020 to discuss whether it would be in Mrs C’s best interest to remain at the care home on a permanent basis and they both agreed that it would be.
57. Miss B wrote to the social worker on 18 May 2020 and said she agreed that the care home was the best option for Mrs C. Miss B had read the Council’s residential charging policy and her understanding was that the first four weeks of a permanent residential placement were paid at the fixed charge of £138.10 per week set out in appendix D.
58. As the first four weeks (from 24 April 2020 until 22 May 2020) were funded outside of that policy, Miss B said the first four weeks started on 23 May 2020 and ended on 19 June 2020. She said she also wanted the Council to provide a personal budget.
59. The social worker recorded the ‘best interest decision’ on 18 May 2020 and said it was in Mrs C’s best interest to remain in the care home.
60. Miss B contacted the social worker on 21 May 2020 as she had questions regarding the funding. The social worker said she would ask someone from the finance team to contact her.
61. A finance officer contacted Miss B on the next day and Miss B asked him to send her the appropriate assessment form for her to complete. Miss B received the form on 26 May 2020. The deadline for return was 22 June 2020.
62. On 10 June 2020 the Council sent two letters to Miss B and said Mrs C should pay a ‘provisional’ contribution of £304.95 per week towards the care home fees from 24 April 2020 and £148.85 from 23 May 2020.
63. The Council checked the Land Registry on 11 June 2020 and noted that Mrs C owned her property, although it was still registered in her late husband’s name. The Council concluded that Mrs C would have to self-fund her care home fees. I understand the Council wrote a letter to Miss B on the same day and told her that her (Miss B’s) property would be taken into account to pay Mrs C’s care home fees by 15 July 2022 (I have not seen a copy of the letter).
64. The social worker spoke to Miss B on 12 June 2020 and explained that, if Mrs C has assets over £23,250, she would be assessed as self-funding.
65. Miss B returned the financial assessment form on 12 June 2020.
66. Miss B included a letter and supplementary sheets with the form and said:
• She had received the two letters asking for a contribution. The letters were ‘a complete waste of time’ as she had not provided Mrs C’s financial details yet.
• The finance team should communicate with the social work team. Mrs C had been told that she did not have to pay for the first four weeks of her stay.
• She had not received the care plan nor the personal budget.
• She accepted Mrs C’s house would have to be sold, but did not think this could be done in the short term.
• There was no option in the form to set out the interim costs relating to the house while it remained in Mrs C’s possession. She estimated this would cost £5,000 a year.
• People in need of care were ‘left to wade through poorly-designed forms, on-line links… and hundreds of pages of legal Acts of Parliament to ascertain entitlements…’
67. Miss B wrote to the Council’s finance team on 13 June 2020, after receiving the letter dated 11 June 2020 and said:
• The Council continued to ‘bombard me with reams of paper…and is now bordering on pestering’.
• Why did the Council send her letters asking for payment if it had not carried out the financial assessment yet and the financial assessment was not due until 22 June 2020?
• She had still not received the personal budget, nor any documents relating to her mother’s move.
• She had found out the Council had contacted the Land Registry to make enquiries about Mrs C’s property. This was premature.
• She put the Council on notice that this letter was the first part of the Council’s complaints process. If she did not receive the information that she was entitled within 10 working days, she would escalate the matter to a formal stage 1 complaint.
68. On 18 June 2021, the finance officer received internal legal advice that, although he could take Mrs C’s property into account as capital, he could not offer Mrs C a deferred payment agreement as the property was not registered in Mrs C’s name.
69. The Council received Mrs C’s financial assessment form on 22 June 2020. This showed that Mrs C had £49,000 capital in the bank in addition to owning a house.
70. Mrs C wrote to the social worker on 25 June 2020 and explained her complaint about the finance team. She said:
• She had great difficulties initially trying to obtain the hourly rate for the non-residential charges.
• She received the financial assessment for the residential charges on 26 May 2020 and was ready to return the form when she received lots of paperwork from the Council which showed the Council was running assessments before receiving the information.
• The Council’s charging policy was two years out of date, open to interpretation and lacking in details.
• She had still not received any of the information she asked for in her letter email dated 18 May 2020, her letter dated 13 June 2020 or any documents relating to the placement at the care home.
71. The Council wrote to Miss B on 26 June 2020 and said that, as Mrs C had capital in excess of £23,250, she had to self-fund her placement from 21 May 2020. If, in the future, the capital approached the threshold for funding eligibility, she should approach the local authority where the care home was situated if this was not in Manchester.
72. Miss B emailed the social worker on 1 July 2020 and said she had still not received any of the documents she was entitled to,
73. The Council replied to Miss B’s complaint on 8 July 2020 and said:
• The finance officer who sent out the letters on 10 June 2020 did not know that Mrs C’s placement was funded by Covid-funding for four weeks and this led to the Council sending out letters saying that the placement was chargeable from the outset.
• The officer sent out standard letters based on the information the Council had at the time.
• The Council always carried out Land Registry checks for residential placements when there was a property and the Council may have to offer a deferred payment agreement.
• The Council ‘overlooked’ Miss B’s letter dated 13 June 2020 and then failed to respond to the letter.
• The charging policy contained outdated figures. The Council was in the process of revising the policy.
• The standard notification letters mentioned the importance of keeping up with payments and the potential of debt recovery proceedings. The letters said the charges were provisional pending receipt of Mrs C’s financial details.
• The transmission arrangement from a Council funded placement to a self-funding placement could have been explained better.
74. The Council had taken the following actions to prevent a repeat of what happened:
• Officers had to check the funding arrangements of all new residential placements.
• Staff had to make a case note of any actions they take or information they receive that could be relevant to the staff carrying out the financial assessment.
• Staff were reminded to check documents and respond in a timely manager.
• The notification letter templates and the policy wording were being reviewed.
75. Miss B was not satisfied with the Council’s response and wrote a further letter of complaint on 13 July 2020. She said:
• She had still not received the care assessment or personal budget and wanted the Council to send those documents and the care plan.
• Mrs C’s permanent stay at the care home started on 22 May 2020 (after the Covid funding ended) and therefore she should be charged at the Light Touch cost of £138.10 for the first four weeks.
• She wanted a breakdown of the fees and she wanted the Council to communicate with the care home about the fees.
• She wanted confirmation that, once the funding threshold was reached, she should contact Manchester and not the council where care home K was situated.
76. The Council replied on 28 July 2020. The Council upheld the following complaints:
77. The Council failed to:
• Acknowledge Miss B’s letter dated 13 June 2020 and the accompanying document and respond to these documents.
• Send her the care plan in a timely manner, but this had now happened.
• The letters of 11 June 2020 were incorrect as the officer did not know about the Covid funding. The letter of 26 June was still incorrect. The Council apologised and said that the pandemic had presented the Council with unprecedented circumstances and challenges.
78. The Council also said:
• If the full picture of Mrs C’s finances had been known, the Council would not have needed to be involved in her case.
• There was no need to carry out a full financial assessment as Mrs C had capital over £23,250.
• The Light Touch fee of £138.10 only applied to residents who were eligible for Council funding, not residents who were self-funders.
• It would not provide her with a breakdown of the self-funding fees as she was a self-funder.
• The Council had funded the first four weeks of £750 per week and had written to the care home to say that Mrs C would pay her fees directly to the care home from 22 May 2020.
• Mrs C was a self-funder so she became ordinarily resident at the care home’s address.
79. The Council said it would make changes as a result of Miss B’s complaint and would:
• Ask the Case Management Team and Social Work team to discuss how to improve communication.
• Information about the financial assessment and funding would be provided to the social work team so they were ‘refreshed’ in their responsibilities.
• Review the charging policy, as previously explained.
80. Miss B wrote to the Council on 28 August 2020 as she was not satisfied with its response to her complaint and wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. The Council responded on 9 September 2020 and said it had nothing further to add to its stage 1 response and that it would not investigate the complaint further.
81. The Council also made further comments about the complaint to the Ombudsman and said:
• It explained the great difficulties the Council faced during the first lockdown of the pandemic and the fact that Council staff were working from home, often for the first time. There was an increase in demand on the Council’s services. Hospitals were also trying to discharge people into care home but care homes were not accepting residents because of fears of Covid.
• The Council sent the Care Act assessment on 21 July 2021, but there was insufficient postage on the envelope so the social worker hand delivered the funding for the additional postage.
• In response to the Council not providing the personal budget for the home care, the Council said Miss B had already sourced a private care provider before contacting the Council and was told she could contact the provider directly to find out what the cost would be.
• In terms of not providing a personal budget for the care home cost, the Council said the social worker had explained to Miss B that the personal budget was the cost of the residential care home of her choice.

Care plan – 8 September 2020

82. The Council has sent me a copy of the care plan dated 8 September 2020. This showed Mrs C needed 24-hour emergency respite support as her care and support needs had changed. An emergency placement had been sourced at care home K. The personal budget was £0.00 (left blank).

Analysis

Failure to provide documents

83. The Council had a duty to provide Mrs C with a needs assessment and care plan (including a personal budget figure) in early 2020 when the care plan was to increase Mrs C’s home care package and then again in April 2020 when the plan had changed to residential care.
84. It is my understanding the Council provided Mrs C with the assessment and care plan on 21 July 2020. However, the assessment document was out of date as it was the old assessment from February 2020 when the social worker assessed Mrs C as requiring care at home.
85. I am not clear why the Council did not send Miss B a copy of the 28 February 2020 assessment in February as it had completed the document, but it should have done. The social worker also failed to provide Miss B with a personal budget figure.
86. There was then further fault when the Council delayed providing a care plan once Mrs C moved into care home K and did not tell her what the personal budget was.

The Council’s charging policy

87. I uphold Miss B’s complaint that the Council’s residential charging policy is unclear, open to misinterpretation and out of date. This policy, I presume, was meant to be a summary that is easily accessible to the general public. I note the Council has more detailed policies for its own officers.
88. I agree with Miss B that the Council should have updated the policy so that it reflected its current rates of charging and its failure to do so was fault. But, on a more basic level, the document was not always clear and, by trying to put things in a simple wording, it sometimes created confusion.
89. A general principle of the regulations is that, if a person’s capital exceeds £23,250, then the Council is not permitted to pay towards the cost of the care home.
90. However, it did not say that clearly in the policy. The policy (section 8) said that for permanent stays in a care home, the Council would charge a set amount for the first four weeks as per appendix D. This was then qualified by three subsections. One of the subsections said a person with capital over £23,250, would need to arrange to be placed in a care home itself and they could then contact the Council when the savings and investments dropped below £23,250. However, placing yourself in a care home is different from funding your own care costs. It did not say, (although I accept it was implied) that they had to self-fund.

Payment of the four weeks

91. Miss B says the Council should pay for the four weeks of the placement from 23 May 2020 as per its policy. Miss B is of the view that the Council’s interpretation of its own policy is wrong.
92. Although I understand Miss B’s position, I cannot say that the Council’s interpretation of its own policy is wrong.
93. Ultimately, the Council wrote the policy so it knows what it meant to say, even though the policy was not very clear. Also, the Council was bound not only by this charging policy, but also by its other more detailed charging policies (which were clearer) and the wider statutory framework on residential charging. These all said Mrs C would not be eligible for funding as she had capital over the threshold.

Failure to provide a financial assessment or breakdown of the charges

94. Miss B also complains that the Council has not provided her with a financial assessment or with breakdown of the charges in line with the policy. I do not uphold this complaint, but I agree that the policy is confusing in these areas.
95. Section 9 (financial assessment) of the Council’s policy says that, after four weeks of a permanent stay in a care home, the Council will carry out a financial assessment and then refers to the assessment of the income. This only related to people whose capital was below the threshold but the policy did not explain this.
96. The Council carried out an appropriate financial assessment of Mrs C. It assessed her capital and concluded that she was over the threshold. There was no need for the Council to assess Mrs C’s income as it was not relevant.
97. In terms of the breakdown of the charges (section 13), I fear this may be another case where the policy was open to misinterpretation. When the Council talked about charges, it meant the Council charging a contribution from a person’s income and how this charge was calculated. However, the Council was not charging Mrs C any contribution as she was a self-funder.

Communication about the finances

98. The Council has already accepted there was fault in the letters the Council’s finance team sent to Miss B in June 2020.
99. Firstly, the letters dated 10 June 2020 said Mrs C would have to pay a contribution from the time she moved into the care home which was wrong as the first four weeks of her stay were funded by Covid funding. Secondly these letters were sent out before Miss B had completed the financial assessment so there was no basis for the calculations in the letters. There were factual mistakes in the letter dated 11 June 2020 and the letter dated 26 June 2020 was incorrect as the officer was still not aware of the Covid funding.
100. I agree there was fault. There was poor communication between the social work and the finance department about the Covid funding although I accept that this was a new funding stream and I accept the stresses the Council was under at the time.
101. I do question why the Council was sending out letters before receiving the financial assessment. The Guidance says the Council’s power to charge is based on the financial assessment. The Guidance also says that one of the basic principles of charging is that the approach should be clear and transparent so that people know how much they will be charged. The letters were far from clear and transparent and confused matters.
102. The Council has also upheld Miss B’s complaint that it did not reply to Miss B’s letter dated 12 June 2020 and the supplementary sheets which she included with the financial assessment form and I agree there was fault.
103. I do not find fault with the Council’s decision in June 2020 to check the Land Registry to find out whether Mrs C owned her home. This was good practice as councils are under a duty to try to set up any necessary deferred payment agreements within the initial 12-week disregard period.

Injustice

104. Miss B has suffered an injustice as a result of the faults I have found. The lack of care plans at both stages meant Miss B was unable to properly scrutinise the care plans and decide whether they would meet Mrs C’s needs. This was particularly important once Mrs C moved to a care home as Miss B had no written information to assess whether this care home would meet Mrs C’s needs.
105. The continuous poor communication from the Council in terms of the financial side made matters worse. The four letters that were sent were incorrect and further confused matters, particularly in combination with the charging policy which did not properly explain what the Council’s duties were towards self-funders. Miss B was left trying to navigate the system without proper support.
106. Miss B says it was up to her to constantly seek answers, confirmations and an understanding. Miss B says she had her own health problems and that she was subjected to ‘days and days of incompetence, ineptitude and buck passing’.
107. However, I do appreciate the considerable pressures the Council was under at the time, as it was dealing with the first wave of the pandemic. These pressures meant that there were greater demands on its services, less supply of care homes and added difficulties as staff were working from home. Of course, that does not affect the fault I found in the unclear wording in the policies which was a long-term problem or the fault relating to the Council’s actions when Mrs C was still living at home, as this was before the pandemic.
108. Therefore, although there was fault which caused an injustice, I accept the reasons behind some of the fault and I also understand that the social worker was focussed on delivering the service first.

Back to top

Agreed action

109. The Council has agreed to take the following actions within one month of the final decision.
110. It will:
• Apologise to Miss B in writing for the fault I have identified.
• Remind adult social care staff of the importance of providing documents and information at the relevant time.
111. The Council has already implemented a number of service improvements as a result of Miss B’s complaint and is in the process of reviewing the charging policy and the standard letters. The Council has agreed to give the Council officers involved in this process a copy of this decision so they can consider the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

112. I have completed my investigation and found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed the remedy to address the injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

113. I have not investigated whether this Council or the neighbouring council is responsible for supporting Mrs C.
114. Firstly, Miss B has not contacted the neighbouring council yet so its position is not known. It may well that it accepts responsibility in which case there is no injustice to Mrs C.
115. Secondly, if there is a dispute about where Mrs C’s ordinary residence is, then this can only be decided by the Secretary of State and is therefore outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman