Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of a financial assessment for Mrs Y. The injustice is not significant enough to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of Mrs Y. He says the Council failed to conduct a financial assessment in a timely manner.
2. Mr X says the delay meant the Council charged Mrs Y too much for her care fees. He says the matter caused him distress and frustration and reduced Mrs Y’s remaining savings.
3. Mr X wants the Council to repay the amount he says Mrs Y overpaid.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• 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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The evidence I have seen shows Mrs Y’s savings remained above the capital threshold until late June 2025. During that period, she was responsible for meeting the full cost of her care. The Council completed informal financial assessments in January, April, May and June 2025 which confirmed this position.
8. In late June 2025, Mrs Y’s savings reduced to the threshold at which the Council began to pay some of her care fees. The Council completed a financial assessment in early July 2025 and assessed Mrs Y’s contribution from the date she became eligible for financial support.
9. Mrs Y remained responsible for the full cost of her care while her savings were above the capital threshold. Therefore, even if there was delay by the Council in assessing her, this did not cause Mrs Y a significant injustice. An earlier financial assessment may have meant Mrs Y’s savings lasted a little longer but as a result, she would have had to pay the full costs of her care for a little longer too. This is because it was only once her savings dipped below the relevant threshold that the Council started contributing towards her care costs. Therefore, any injustice is not significant enough to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman