Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council charging her father, Mr C, for his residential care. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the Council’s actions to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained neither she nor her father, Mr C, were told he would have to pay for his residential care when he was first admitted to a residential care home in March 2020. Ms B says she only knew of the charges in February 2021 when the Council undertook a financial assessment for him and believed he should have received funding under section 117 of the Mental Health Act.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• 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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. The complainant had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council says Mr C was detained under section 2 of the Mental Health Act (MHA) not section 3 so was not entitled to s117 aftercare. It says its Financial Assessment Team received a referral in February 2020 but could not proceed with the assessment because it was unaware if anyone had appointeeship or Power of Attorney for him. It says it sent Ms B a copy of the charging booklet in the post.
7. In July 2020 the Council says it wrote to Ms B asking her for proof of her legal status but did not receive a response. The Council says it received a voicemail from Ms B in July 2020 stating she will not pay because Mr C was placed in the home for rehabilitation.
8. The Council says it sent a reminder letter to Ms B in September 2020 asking for the information and contacted the DWP who confirmed Ms B was Mr C’s appointee for finances. Ms B provided evidence of her DWP appointeeship in September 2020.
9. The Council says in October 2020 Ms B was advised it had completed a light touch assessment and Mr B would pay a minimum of £142.35 a week backdated to March 2020 when it first sent Ms B a copy of the Help to Pay Your Care Fees booklet. It attached a further copy of the booklet. Ms B responded in November 2020 and a full financial assessment was completed. Ms B was notified of the outcome in January 2021. The full assessment reduced Mr C’s care charges between March and December 2020 as he was a temporary resident at the time and had home financial commitments. From January 2021 Mr B became a permanent resident and his contribution increased to the minimum charge identified in October.
10. Ms B says Mr C should not have to pay for his care until such time the Council undertook the full assessment of his finances. However, the Council advised Ms B Mr C would need to pay for his care, but she disputed this saying he was entitled to free care. The Council confirmed Mr B was not detained under section 3 of the MHA and attempted to ascertain information to undertake a financial assessment. It advised Ms B in March 2020 Mr C would be required to contribute towards his care package and sent the relevant booklet about paying for care. Ms B emailed the Council in October 2020 saying neither she nor her father were responsible to pay care costs as she was told funding was secured. I have not seen any evidence to support this view.
11. Ms B was sent information about paying for care and has been disputing the fact Mr C should not pay. The Care Act sets out who should pay and the Council’s duty for assessing finances.

Care and support statutory guidance - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman