Sheffield City Council (21 016 363)

Category : Adult care services > Charging

Decision : Not upheld

Decision date : 22 Jun 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mrs F and the Council has reached an agreement about her complaint regarding her late husband’s care charges, which both parties are happy with. As there is nothing further we could achieve, we have discontinued our investigation.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs F, complained about the Council’s handling of her husband’s (Mr F) care charges. She said it had delayed completing and made errors in his financial assessment. She also said it communicated poorly with her.
  2. As a result, Mrs F said she experienced financial loss as she were being asked to pay for incorrect charges which did not know about.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. As part of my investigation, I have considered Mrs F’s complaint and the Council’s responses. I also discussed the complaint with Mrs F’s advocate.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

  1. In 2019 Mr F’s health deteriorated and he had lost capacity to make decisions about his finances and care arrangements. He was admitted to hospital, and shortly after, he was discharged into a care home (Care Home X).
  2. A month later, a best interest decision was made on Mr F’s behalf. The decision was he should be placed permanently in another care home (Care Home Y) to receive the care and support he needed. However, the Council could not move him at the time due to an outbreak of COVID-19 with Care Home Y.
  3. Five weeks later, Mr F was moved to Care Home Y.
  4. In late 2019 Mrs F received a bill from the Care Home for Mr F’s care charges. She called the Council to dispute the costs as it had not completed a financial assessment for him.
  5. The Council completed Mr F’s financial assessment and verbally told Mrs F about the outcome. It sent her its formal notification of the outcome two weeks later. But this was to the Care Home address, so Mrs F did not receive it until the Council sent it again a month later.
  6. The Council’s assessment said Mr F had accrued arrears of over £2,500 since he had been registered as a permanent resident in Care Home Y.
  7. In Spring 2020 Mr F died. Mrs F also received a bill for Mr F’s care from Care Home X. This was the care he received after the best interest decision had been made until he was moved to Care Home Y.
  8. Mrs F asked the Council to write off Mr F’s care charges due to the delays it had caused in completing his financial assessment. However, the Council refused. So, Mrs F’s advocate to complained to the Council.
  9. In response, the Council accepted it had caused delays in completing Mr F financial assessment, and it had caused some confusion and delay in its communication of the care charges to Mrs F. It apologised to Mrs F. It also said:
    • its assessment was correct, except for a small weekly additional personal allowance Mr F was entitled to. It had credited this to his account;
    • it found it was not appropriate to write off Mr F’s care charge arrears as Mrs F had received his income which should have been used to pay for these. It said she had agreed to be responsible for paying his care charges when she signed the financial assessment referral form; and
    • it had taken steps to ensure financial assessment delays did not occur in the future.
  10. Mrs F was not satisfied with the Council’s response. She asked her advocate to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman.
  11. At the same time, the Council told Mrs F it had underwritten the care charge arrears to Care Home X and Care Home Y. Her arrears were therefore now to the Council. It offered her to only charge her for Mr F’s care from when it notified her about the outcome of his financial assessment in late 2019. As Mrs F had made some payments, this meant she owed less than £600.
  12. Mrs F has since agreed to the Council’s offer. Her advocate also said the amount Mrs F must pay has reduced even further, and she is happy with the outcome.

Conclusions

  1. As Mrs F has agreed with the Council’s offer and is satisfied with the actions it has taken, there is nothing further we can achieve from investigating the complaint further.
  2. I have also discussed the complaint with Mrs F’s advocate, who confirmed Mrs F is happy with the outcome and for the investigation to end. I have therefore discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have discontinued my investigation on the basis Mrs F and the Council has come to an agreement they are both happy with.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings