Kent County Council (22 015 605)

Category : Adult care services > Assessment and care plan

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 28 Mar 2023

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to pay Mr B’s wife’s Care Provider a fee increase. This is because the actions taken by the Council have not caused Mr or Mrs B a significant enough injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

  1. Mr B says the Council’s refusal to pay his wife’s, Mrs B’s, Care Provider the increase in care fees it has requested is placing his wife at risk of being evicted from her care home. Mr B says the Council should pay the increase and backdate payment to May 2022 when the increase was first imposed by the Care Provider.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:
  • any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
  • any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. The Council took over commissioning Mrs B’s privately arranged placement when her funds fell below the threshold for full self-funding. Mrs B currently pays a contribution to the Council for her care. The Council explained it invites all Care Providers to join its formal commissioning arrangements so it can provide support and have a more robust oversight regarding the quality and care provided to residents it commissions care for. Homes that choose not to join and are not part of the Council’s contracting arrangements are not entitled to the annual fee uplift. This is the case with Mrs B’s Care Provider. The Council says its Strategic Commissioning Team has communicated this to Mrs B’s Care Provider and invited it to join its contract so it can receive the annual fee uplift. The Council says the placement continues to meet Mrs B’s needs and is currently secure.
  2. Neither Mr or Mrs B have suffered any injustice because of the Council’s decision not to pay the Care Provider its requested uplift. The speculative injustice Mr B refers to has not happened. If Mrs B’s Care Provider terminates its council commissioned placements, it will be for the Council to consider whether Mrs B can be moved or whether she will need to stay in the home. The Council has a duty of care to Mrs B and there are processes in place, various checks, and balances to consider before Mrs B can be evicted.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is no evidence of a significant enough injustice to either him or Mrs B because of the Council’s actions warranting an ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings