Summary: There is no fault by the Council. The assessment of the complainant’s contribution to care fees took much longer than usual. But this was not due to any fault by the Council. The Council completed a safeguarding investigation based on the information it had. Again, this was not fault by it.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains on behalf of herself and her mother, Mrs Y. Ms B says the Council:
• failed to complete a financial assessment and advise what was being charged for Mrs Y’s care when her savings fell below the threshold for full funding; and
• wrongly made a referral for a safeguarding investigation when she closed Mrs Y’s Post Office account. This was wrong because Ms B had authority to close this and followed the correct procedures.
2. Ms B says that as a result of the Council’s failings she is unclear at what point the Council took over funding for Mrs Y’s care and she continues to receive invoices for this. It has taken an inordinate amount of her time and resources. Ms B adds that the safeguarding process was extremely stressful and slanderous.

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. I considered the information provided by Ms B and discussed the issues with her. I considered the information provided by the Council including the case notes and correspondence with Miss B. I also considered law and guidance. Both parties have had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this statement. I have taken the comments of both parties into account before issuing my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The law and guidance

6. The charging rules for residential care are set out in the “Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014”, and the “Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014”. When the Council arranges a care home placement, it has to follow these rules when undertaking a financial assessment to decide how much a person has to pay towards the costs of their residential care.
7. The rules state that people who have over the upper capital limit (currently £23,250) are expected to pay for the full cost of their residential care home fees. However, once their capital has reduced to less than the upper capital limit, they only have to pay an assessed contribution towards their fees.
8. The council must assess the means of people who have less than the upper capital limit, to decide how much they can contribute towards the cost of the care home fees.
9. Someone can apply to the court to become a person’s deputy if they cannot make decisions for themselves. The deputyship authorises someone to make certain decisions, including decisions about finances, on that person’s behalf.
10. Similarly, a person can apply to the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) to act on someone’s behalf to deal with their benefits. This is called an appointee, and can be a person, or an organisation such as a local council.
11. A council must make necessary enquiries if it has reason to think a person may be at risk of abuse or neglect and has needs for care and support which mean he or she cannot protect himself or herself. It must also decide whether it or another person or agency should take any action to protect the person from abuse or risk. (section 42, Care Act 2014)

What happened

12. Mrs Y lived with her husband. She has a mental illness and had some mobility problems. In December 2019, Mrs Y was admitted hospital and it became apparent that she would move to a residential care home. The Council discussed this with Mrs Y, her husband and Ms B.
13. The case notes say that Mrs Y will pay the full cost of her placement as her savings exceed the capital limits. The notes say Ms B told the Council that her mother’s savings would likely fall below the capital limits within three to four months, and the Council advised that it would complete a financial assessment when Mrs Y’s savings approached the capital limit.
14. Mrs Y was discharged from hospital and admitted to a care home on 24 January 2020. The Council made a referral to its income maximisation team to make sure that the family were getting the correct benefits. Mrs Y’s savings were around £46,000 in a joint account with her husband and around £18,000 in her own post office account. Ms B could not access the post office account to pay for the care home, and she understood that her father would not pay the fees from the joint account. She also received specialist advice that her mother was not entitled to half of the joint account. The Council gave Ms B information about deputyship so that she could access Mrs Y’s financial information on her behalf.
15. By the end of March, Ms B told the Council that her mother was approaching the capital limit. Ms B had also applied to the DWP to become her mother’s appointee, so she could deal with her benefit income, but this was taking much longer than expected due to COVID-19 restrictions. Ms B said that her father would not pay the fees out of the joint account. In the meantime, the Council contracted with the care home to pay the fees, so that Mrs Y’s placement was not jeopardised. The understanding was that Mrs Y would reimburse the Council once Ms B could access her savings.
16. On 14 May 2020, Ms B closed Mrs Y’s Post Office account using a third-party account closure process. This allows a third party to close an account on producing identity documents. Ms B told the Council she had transferred the balance of £20,000 to a holding account. The Council was not aware of the correct closing procedure and was concerned that Ms B was closing Mrs Y’s account without authority. Ms B told the Council she could transfer the money to pay Mrs Y’s care contribution once it had completed a financial assessment.
17. The Council raised a safeguarding alert. It was concerned that Mrs Y had savings in her post office account and her joint account but now this appeared to have diminished to less than the capital limit; in the Council’s view Mrs Y had effectively lost around £20,000. The Council asked Ms B for her mother’s accounts for the last year and details of spending.
18. The Council visited Mrs Y but she was unable to give any information about her finances. The family told the Council that its specialist advice was that Mrs Y was not entitled to the savings in the joint account as this was solely her father’s pension. The Council advised that it still needed details of the account so it could assess this. The Council was also concerned because the care home told it that Mrs Y only had £5 per week for her personal spending. Ms B disagrees that Mrs Y only had £5 per week and says she was not made aware that her mother needed more money.
19. In the meantime, Ms B used the post office account funds to pay the arrears of fees that had accrued prior to the Council taking over the funding. In August, the Council asked Ms B to confirm details of the joint account, to discuss closing the post office account, and where she was in the process of applying for deputyship to access her mother’s finances. Ms B advised that she had not been able to give the Council information about the joint account because her father, whose mental and physical health was deteriorating, would not share this with them.
20. At the end of September, Ms B was granted power of attorney for her father’s finances and sent the Council statements of the joint account and the closing statement of the post office account showing a closing balance of £20,000. Ms B also told the Council that its safeguarding enquiry meant that she was no longer willing to be her mother’s appointee for benefits, and these had been suspended. Ms B made clear to the Council, that she was no longer willing to deal with her mother’s finances.
21. The Council found that Ms B was able to close the post office account and had followed the correct procedure. The Council apologised to Ms B for any distress it had caused and has updated its staff training to make officers aware that a post office account can legitimately be closed by a third party.
22. Initially, the Council intended to apply to the court for deputyship over Mrs Y’s finances. However, her family objected to this and the Council decided to apply for appointeeship only so that the benefit situation could be addressed. This would allow the Council to finally complete the financial assessment and establish how much Mrs Y should contribute to the care fees. In the meantime, the Council paid an allowance to Mrs Y for her personal expenses.
23. The Council was made appointee for Mrs Y’s benefits in June 2021. The Council applied for Mrs Y’s pension credit and this was backdated. The Council had to wait for the final amount of backdated benefit payment, and then it could finally complete a full financial assessment. The Council assured Ms B that its assessment would be backdated so that her mother would not be disadvantaged by the delay.
24. The Council has since applied for deputyship and this will be finalised soon. The Council has completed the financial assessment and has backdated this. The Council has not sent Ms B or the family a copy of this, as the Council is appointee for Ms B’s finances.

Was there fault by the Council causing an injustice to Mrs Y or her family?

25. The Council’s financial assessment took much longer than usual. However, this was not due to fault by the Council. The delay was because neither the Council nor the family could access all of the financial information needed.
26. The Council initially had to accept verbal information that suggested that Mrs Y had in excess of the lower threshold and so would need to meet the full cost of the care. It was not fault for the Council to do this.
27. The Council acknowledged the family had been advised that Mrs Y was not entitled to the joint account, but it had to investigate this, and again neither Ms B nor the Council could access this information until September 2020.
28. The Council recognised the delay and at an early stage protected Mrs Y’s placement by funding this. I recognise that although this would have reassured the family, the uncertainty around how much Mrs Y should pay and the eventual arrears owed, might cause distress and frustration. However, the Council could not complete the assessment until it had information about Mrs Y’s benefits, and this was not possible until it got appointeeship in June 2021. Following that, the Council acted in good time to make sure Mrs Y’s benefits were in payment and backdated. The Council did not cause the delay.
29. The Council has acknowledged that it should have been aware that a third party could legally close Mrs Y’s post office account. However, I cannot criticise it for raising the safeguarding alert. Mrs Y had no capacity to safeguard her finances herself, and there was no court appointed person to do this for her. It was not clear, what was happening with her finances and the home told the Council it had concerns that Mrs Y did not have sufficient personal spending money. I appreciate that safeguarding investigations are upsetting. However, the Council took all these factors into account and it was not fault for it to seek to protect Mrs Y from the risk of potential financial abuse.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I have completed my investigation. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman