Summary: There is no evidence to suggest that the Council were at fault for charging Mr C for care. The Ombudsman’s investigation found Mr C decided to stay at a care home, rather than return to his home, and that he was aware this would be chargeable. There is also no evidence the Council delaying adaptations to Mr C’s property.

The complaint

1. A representative, whom I shall refer to as Mr Z, is complaining on behalf of the complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C.
2. Mr C says the Council has delayed in making adaptions to his property, and consequently has had to stay in a care home which he is being unfairly charged for. Mr C says he was told he would not be charged for the care home fees.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and;
• reviewed and considered information received from the council; and
• considered the relevant legislation; and
• corresponded with Mr Z about Mr C’s complaint.
6. I also sent a draft version of this decision to both parties and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Charging for care

7. Councils have discretion to choose whether to charge for non-residential care services.
8. A council must not charge for certain types of care and support. This includes intermediate care, including reablement, which it must provide free of charge for up to six weeks.

What happened

9. In January 2019, Mr C was admitted to hospital with a condition that affects the nerves, resulting in numbness, weakness and pain of the hands, feet and limbs.
10. The Council carried out an assessment and concluded that Mr C was eligible for a reablement care package. It subsequently ordered a hoist and profiling bed, to be installed in Mr C’s home.
11. On 10 January, Mr C was discharged from hospital, before the equipment could be installed. The Council concluded it was not possible for carers to provide care at Mr C’s home without the equipment, so Mr C was transferred to a care home. Mr C’s stay in the care home was non-chargeable as it was part of his reablement care.
12. Records show the equipment was installed in Mr C’s home, and Mr C was discharged from the care home on 12 March. However, due to a deterioration in Mr C’s health he returned to the care home on 15 March.
13. On 15 April, the NHS Wheelchair Service, carried out an assessment at Mr C’s home. The NHS concluded Mr C could use a motorised wheelchair at home. The Council then started the process for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG), to install an access ramp at the property.
14. Records show that on 16 April, the Council assessed Mr C’s care needs. It concluded that he could return home, but it recorded that Mr C wanted to remain in the care home until his wheelchair was delivered.
15. Records show the Council told Mr C his period of enablement had now ended, and if he were to stay in the home, he would be liable for the ongoing cost, to which he agreed. The Council gave Mr C a financial assessment form, which he said he would fill in with the help of his friend.
16. The Council subsequently wrote to Mr C asking him to complete a financial assessment form, in order to be considered for the DFG, to install the wheelchair ramp. Records show that Mr C refused to complete the form.
17. On 2 September, the NHS delivered the wheelchair to Mr C’s home. The Council subsequently started a package of reablement care, in order to prepare Mr C to return home. Mr C returned home at the end of September and received a further ten weeks of reablement care at home.
18. In October, Mr Z asked for Mr C to be considered for a DFG, to install the wheelchair ramp. Upon receiving the financial assessment form from the Council, records show that Mr Z said that Mr C would not be eligible for the DFG, and instead asked the Council to provide advice on installing a ramp.

Analysis

19. Mr C says that when he arrived at the care home he was told that his stay would not be charge.
20. However, Mr C’s care records do show the Council concluded that he could return home in April, and he instead stated he wanted to stay in the care home. Records also state that he was told that if he chose to stay, his care would be chargeable. I therefore do not find any evidence of fault in how the Council informed Mr C about his care charges.
21. Mr C also says that he should have only stayed at the care home for four to five weeks, but this was extended because the Council failed to complete adaptations to his property on time, and because a wheelchair was not provided.
22. Care records show that the Council tried to assess Mr C’s suitability for a DFG in order to install a ramp to his property, but Mr C refused to complete a financial assessment and upon returning home, it transpired that Mr C would not have been eligible for a DFG.
23. I do not find fault in how the Council processed Mr C’s application for a DFG and therefore cannot conclude that Mr C’s chargeable stay at the care home was prolonged by delays to adaptations to his home.
24. Mr C also says that delays to the delivery of his wheelchair contributed to his extended stay at the care home. However, this was organised by the NHS, so I am unable to attribute any delays with this to the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have concluded my investigation on the basis that there is no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman