Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr D’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to waiver the full cost of his father’s, Mr C’s care. This is because the Council has waivered the first six weeks, so there is no unremedied injustice for the Ombudsman to investigate.

The complaint

1. Mr D says his father, Mr C, was told the first six weeks of his residential care would be free of charge. Mr D says the Council initially said it would waiver the £3780 charge then invoiced him for part of it. Mr D says the Council should cancel the entire amount as previously advised.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information and documentation Mr D and the Council provided. I sent Mr D a copy of my draft decision for comment.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr D complained to the Council in October when he received an invoice for his father’s care for £3780. Mr D says Mr C went into a residential home in June but he was not invoiced until October.
5. The hospital team responded to Mr D’s complaint in November. It said it had initially considered a halfway bed for Mr C but decided he did not need this level of care so he was transferred into a residential nursing home. It accepted it could not find any evidence that he had been told of the change of plan so agreed to waiver the charges for the first six weeks of his care amounting to £3780.
6. The Council invoiced Mr C in December for £1532.71 advising it had waivered £3569.71. Mr D complained advising he had been told previously the full cost of £3780 had been cancelled.
7. The Council responded on 24 December explaining as he had been previously told it would waiver £3780 rather than £3569.71, the amount he had been invoiced for, it would honour this agreement and waiver the full cost of £3780.
8. The Council explained the £3780 was the full cost Mr C would have paid for the first six weeks of his care from 5 June to 16 July. The additional invoice for £1532.71 for care charges from 17 July to 27 August.
9. The Council agreed to waiver to cost of care for six weeks as Mr C had not received any information about payment and he thought his care would be free of charge for the first six weeks. The Ombudsman is satisfied this remedies any injustice caused to Mr C. Following the first six weeks Mr C knew his care would not be free and there is no injustice to him from receiving invoices for care after the initial six-week period.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has waivered the first six weeks, so there is no unremedied injustice for the Ombudsman to investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman