Summary: Mrs Y complains about the Council’s handling of her father’s (Mr X) discharge from hospital into residential care and related matters. We found the Council to be at fault. It gave Mrs Y incorrect information and took too long to carry out an inaccurate financial assessment. This caused significant distress, uncertainty and frustration. To remedy this injustice, the Council agreed to apologise, make an additional symbolic payment to Mrs Y and take action to correct the financial assessment and reimburse Mrs Y. It will also take action to improve its service.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains about the Council’s handling of her father’s (Mr X) discharge from hospital into residential care and related matters. Specifically, she complains about the Council’s failure to:
1. provide proper support and advice prior to Mr X’s discharge from hospital;
2. complete an accurate financial assessment; and
3. ensure Mr X had money for his day-to-day expenses.
2. Mrs Y says the Council’s prolonged mismanagement of this matter has caused significant distress, inconvenience and financial hardship. Whilst the Council accepted there was fault with its financial assessment, it failed to correct its mistakes during its complaint handling.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. Part of this complaint is late. I have decided to exercise my discretion to investigate what happened from September 2023, when Mr X was discharged from hospital to the Care Home. I am satisfied the discharge arrangements, had an impact on his financial assessment and its implications for both Mr X and Mrs Y. Mrs Y was unaware at the time she had been given misleading advice and so I do not consider it was reasonable for her to have complained sooner that she did.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mrs Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mrs Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Charging for residential care

9. The Care Act 2014 (section 14 and 17) provides a legal framework for charging for care and support. It enables a council to decide whether to charge a person when it is arranging to meet their care and support needs, or a carer’s support needs. The charging rules for residential care are set out in the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and councils should have regard to the Care and Support Statutory Guidance.
10. When the Council arranges a care home placement, it must follow the regulations when undertaking a financial assessment to decide how much a person must pay towards the cost of their residential care.
11. The financial limit, known as the ‘upper capital limit’, exists for the purposes of the financial assessment. This sets out at what point a person can get council support to meet their eligible needs. People who have over the upper capital limit must pay the full cost of their residential care home fees. Once their capital has reduced to less than the upper capital limit, they only have to pay an assessed contribution towards their fees. Where a person’s resources are below the lower capital limit they will not need to contribute to the cost of their care and support from their capital.

Deferred payment agreement

12. A Council must disregard a property value in a financial assessment for the first 12 weeks of a permanent care home placement.
13. A Deferred Payment Agreement (DPA) is the agreement of a council to provide financial help with a person’s care home fees based on repayment when their property is sold or from their estate when they die.

Personal expenses allowance

14. The local authority must leave the person with a minimum amount of income. This is known as the Personal Expenses Allowance (PEA) and the amount is set out in regulations and updates sent via a local authority circular. Anything above this may be taken into account in determining charges. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance, Annex C paragraph 43)
15. The PEA is not a benefit but the amount of a person’s own income that they must be left with after charges have been deducted. However, where a person has no income, the local authority is not responsible for providing one. However, the local authority should support the person to access any relevant state benefits or independent advocacy service. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance, Annex C paragraph 44)

Top up payment

16. If a person chooses to go into a home that costs more than the personal budget, and the council can show that it can meet the person’s needs in a less expensive home within the personal budget, it can still arrange a place at the home if:

• the person can find someone else (a ‘third party’) to pay the top-up; or
• the resident has entered a deferred payment scheme with the council and is willing to pay the top-up fee themself.

What happened

17. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
18. Mr X has care and support needs. He was cared for by Mrs Y at her home. Mr X owned a property that he rented out. In 2023, he was admitted to hospital in another Council’s area.
19. In September 2023, Mrs X contacted the Council seeking advice and assistance with Mr X’s future care needs. It seemed unlikely he would be able to return home and required residential care. Mrs Y expressed a preference for Mr X to be discharged to the same care home (the Care Home) as his wife.
20. The hospital discharge team invited the Council to attend a meeting to discuss possible options. The Council was unable to attend due to short notice.
21. Instead, the Council conducted a telephone assessment with the hospital neuro- physiotherapist. This confirmed Mr X required 24 residential care and would be assessed as having to pay the full cost of his placement because he owned a property.
22. Mrs Y was notified of this assessment and advised to read the Council’s charging policy. She was told a financial assessment has been requested and she would be required to complete the assessment form. She was initially told by the social worker that the Council would pay the full cost of the Care Home for first 12 weeks of care. This was incorrect. When she realised her mistake, the social worker contacted Mrs Y to correct this.
23. Shortly afterwards, Mr X was discharged from hospital to the Care Home. The Council says it was not involved with this arrangement but was arranged by Mrs Y and the hospital. Mrs Y was told that Mr X would be charged at full cost but the Council could provide the following assistance.

• Mr X’s property would be disregarded for the first 12 weeks property.
• The Council would contract with the Care Home, subject to a brokerage fee.
• The Council would enter into a DPA.

24. Mrs X was also informed the placement required a top up payment of £700 per week. She told the Ombudsman that she had paid the home directly for the full cost of the placement whilst the Council completed the financial assessment. This had a significant impact on her own finances and caused great uncertainty about Mr X’s placement at the Care Home.
25. The Council completed its financial assessment in October 2024. The Council proposed a DPA but Mrs X was not satisfied the Council’s calculations were accurate.
26. In April 2025, Ms Y made a complaint to the Council about the way the Council handled her father’s admission to residential care. She was concerned she had paid too much, and it was unsustainable.

The Council’s position

27. In response to Mrs Y’s complaint, the Council’s made the follow points.

• Whilst accepting it was unfortunate that the Council did not attend the discharge meeting, this was due to lack of notice.
• The Council did not have the opportunity to discuss, and possibly address, the high cost of the Care Home, before the discharge arrangements had been made by Mrs Y and the hospital. The Council was not informed of the discharge until Mr X was waiting for transport to the Care Home.
• It accepted Mr X’s discharge seemed to be rushed, but this was not the Council’s responsibility.
• Information about the costs and funding was shared with Mrs X around the time of admission.
• The Council inputted the wrong information into its system at the start of the process. This meant the Council failed to set up a DPA. It also meant Mrs X was incorrectly told the deferred payment agreement would exclude the top-up payment.
• The Council provided inadequate social work support to resolve the financial issues.
• Advice was provided about applying for attendance allowance on behalf of Mr X.

28. Overall, the Council upheld Mrs Y’s complaint and acknowledged the distress and frustration she experienced. To remedy this injustice, and correct the consequences of the Council’s inputting error, the Council proposed:

• making a compensatory payment of £500 to Mrs Y;
• amending its system with the correct figures;
• making a request to the Care Home repay the top up payments made by Mrs Y. The Council estimated this to be approximately £30,000, but was unable to provide Mrs Y with an exact figure until the updated financial assessment was completed;
• arranging for a DPA to be drawn up; and
• issuing a correct weekly invoice (backdated) to cover Mr X’s client contribution.

29. However, it said no adjustments would be made to take account of Mr X’s personal spending allowance because Mrs Y had been advised to apply for attendance allowance to maximise his income.
30. Mrs Y was dissatisfied with this outcome because she felt it did not properly acknowledge the impact of the poor advice she received throughout the process, particularly whilst Mr X was still in hospital. She says she was offered no advice about more affordable residential care options.
31. She says Mr X was kept with no money to fund his day-to-day expenses and she had been left to fund the shortfall. She was not prepared to agree to anything further, including signing the DPA until her complaint had been escalated and considered by the Ombudsman. Since bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman, the Care Home made attempts to evict Mr X due to non-payment of care fees.
32. In response to our enquiries, the Council explained:

• it was not involved in the physical discharge of Mr X and it was only aware that the Care Home was looking to assess Mr X at the request of Mrs Y. This impacted on the Council’s ability to provide Mrs Y with advice about other possible options;
• it was unable to provide Mrs X with exact figures until the DPA was signed;
• the Council’s aim remained to reimburse Mrs Y and ensure the Care Home was paid in full;
• Mrs Y was incorrectly adviced at the outset that the 12-week property disregard applied;
• it is the responsibility of the Lasting Power of Attorney to ensure Mr X has sufficient funds to cover his daily expenses; and
• the Council has ensured the security of Mr Y’s placement at the Care Home by taking over responsibility for its full cost from September 2023 onwards.

Analysis

The discharge arrangements

33. Mrs Y says that had the Council should have been more involved with her father’s discharge from hospital, including attendance at the discharge meeting. She says had it sone so, what happened afterwards would have been avoided.
34. I do not find the Council was at fault for not attending the discharge meeting. I accept little notice was given and, regardless of distance, it may not have been feasible to attend at that particular day and time. It was not essential for the social worker to attend such a meeting and I am satisfied she fulfilled her role by carrying the telephone assessment.
35. I am also satisfied the Council was not at fault for not telling Mrs X about other residential care options. This is because Mr X was discharged so quickly. This was a matter over which the Council had no control and was not given notice of. A few days prior to discharge, Mrs Y told the social worker that Mr X was being assessed directly by the Care Home. Mr X’s wife was already a resident there and so entirely understandable why Mrs Y would want to pursue this as her first choice. It was also reasonable for the social worker not to raise other options until the Care Home had carried out its assessment of Mr X.
36. For these reasons, I am satisfied that Council was not at fault for how it responded to Mr X’s discharge from hospital to the Care Home in relation to these two specific areas of concern raised by Mrs Y.

The financial assessment

37. The case records confirm the social worker initially gave Mrs Y incorrect advice about the financial implications of Mr X accepting a place at the Care Home when she told Mrs Y that Mr X was entitled to 12 weeks of free care. Although there was fault here, I acknowledge the social worker quickly corrected this mistake before Mr X took up residence.
38. Once Mr X had been accepted as needing residential care and Mrs Y asked the Council to broker the placement with the Care Home in September 2023, this should have prompted a financial assessment to have been completed in a timely manner. The Council was aware from the outset that Mr X owned a property that was not available for immediate sale and did not have enough savings to sustain the placement in the longer term. For reasons not explained to the Ombudsman, the financial assessment took over a year to complete. This significant delay amounts to fault.
39. The Council has already accepted there was an inputting error that adversely affected the outcome of the financial assessment. It also had significant financial implications for Mrs Y because she was told she was personally responsible for the large top up payment that she paid directly to the Care Home.
40. The Council’s mistakes were only exposed once it was challenged by Mrs Y in her formal complaint. This was approximately 20 months after Mr X took up residence at the Care Home.
41. To the Council’s credit, it sought to ensure Mr X and Mrs Y were put back in the financial position had the errors not been made by offering to take the action summarised at paragraph 28 above. This has not been possible because Mrs Y, as was her right, chose to contact the Ombudsman. Where a council has offered an appropriate remedy during its complaints handling, the Ombudsman would not look to interfere. And this is my position here. I am satisfied, if done correctly, the proposed action will allow Mrs Y to be reimbursed for costs she has incorrectly incurred.
42. To this end, I would encourage Mrs Y to engage with the Council in respect of the DPA.
43. Although I am satisfied with the proposed remedial action regarding the financial assessment, I do not consider the personal remedy offered to Mrs Y properly acknowledges her distress, uncertainly and inconvenience suffered over such a long time period. Mt recommended action below reflects this.

Personal allowance

44. Part of Mrs Y’s complaint is that Mr X did not have enough money left, after paying for his Care Home fees to cover his day-to-day expenses. In my view, this was mainly due to the flawed financial assessment. Mrs Y says she was not told to apply for attendance allowance that would have helped ease her financial burden.
45. However, the Council has provided evidence to show the Council advised Mrs Y at an early stage to apply for attendance allowance that would maximise his income and so increased the money available for his day-to-day expenses. As her father’s Lasting Power of Attorney, the responsibility for making this application rested with Mrs Y, not the Council. For this reason, I do not find the Council to have acted with fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

46. Within four weeks from the date of my final decision, the has agreed to take the following action.
1. Apologise in writing to Mrs Y.
2. Pay Mrs Y £500. This is a symbolic payment to acknowledge her distress, uncertainty and inconvenience caused by the Council’s incorrect advice, delay and flawed financial assessment. For the avoidance of doubt, this is in addition to the payment of £500 already offered by the Council.
3. Contact Mrs Y with a clear proposal setting out the action that it intends to take to complete the Deferred Payment Agreement and to correct the errors with the assessment process. This proposal should include clear timescales and who is responsible for each action. In response to a draft version of this decision, the Council has provided evidence that this process is underway.
47. Within two months of the final decision, the Council should send written reminders to relevant staff of the importance of providing clear information about charging and the financial assessment process to service users at the earliest opportunity. In line with the Care Act guidance, this information should include what people are likely to pay towards their care and support needs. The Council should ensure they accurately record, in detail, any discussions and advice given around this. In response to a draft version of this decision, the Council has provided evidence that this process is underway.
48. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

49. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the personal injustice to Mr X and Mrs Y and take action to improve its service. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman