Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council did not ensure Ms Y understood the charging process and did not follow suitable safeguarding measures. This meant Ms Y accumulated a debt of over £4,000 for her care. Mrs X believes the Council should waive the debt. We found no fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complained on behalf of Ms Y that the Council:
• did not ensure that Ms Y understood the charging process when she signed to accept a care package.
• did not follow suitable safeguarding measures.
2. Mrs X says this meant Ms Y accumulated a debt of over £4,000 for her care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), 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 considered information from the Complainant and from the Council.
6. I sent both parties a copy of my draft decision for comment and took account of the comments I received in response.

Back to top

What I found

7. In 2014, the Council assessed Ms Y and found she had eligible needs for care and support. It assessed her finances and found she had to pay a contribution towards the cost of her care and support.
8. Ms Y needed help with managing her finances although she could make her own decisions about this. She had a support worker who helped her set up payment plans and direct debits for her outgoings. Mrs X says Ms Y lacked capacity to decide about her finances but there is no evidence to support this.
9. The Council contacted Ms Y four weeks after care started when the debt was only £476.85. After this the Council had difficulty in contacting Ms Y.
10. The Council kept in regular contact with Ms Y about her care costs, sending her letters to remind her of the charges. It offered support to set up a payment plan. The debt had increased to £4,000 when the Council eventually set up a payment plan. Ms Y now pays £5 per week towards this debt. I consider this is a suitable response to Ms Y’s situation.
11. Mrs X does not say the care provided was inappropriate or excessive. Ms Y received the care and therefore should make the assessed contribution to the costs. Mrs X does say the support with Ms Y’s finances was not good because it “let” Ms Y accumulate a debt. However, the Council could not force Ms Y to agree to pay the charges or agree to a payment plan. On the balance of probabilities, I have decided it took suitable action to encourage this.
12. There is nothing to suggest the Council should have used safeguarding action here. The debt was caused by care and support that the Council had assessed Ms Y as needing and which she accepted. Ms Y had capacity to make her own decisions about this and was not unhappy about the care and support provided.
13. Therefore, I find the Council’s response was adequate and I cannot add anything to it. On the balance of probabilities, the Council was not at fault here.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Mrs X’s complaint that the Council:
• did not ensure that Ms Y understood the charging process when she signed to accept a care package.
• did not follow suitable safeguarding measures.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman