Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council charging his late mother, Mrs C, for care he believed would be free of charge. This is because further investigation could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding of the kind Mr B wants.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained he understood his mother’s, Mrs C’s, care would be free of charge for the first four weeks. Mr B says the Council delayed in assessing Mrs C’s finances and invoicing for her care. Mr B says although the Council has apologised for the delay he has not had answers to all his questions about why it took 41 days to assess Mrs B’s finances and does not accept it could not have completed an assessment with him sooner.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs C moved into residential care in September 2021 for a 4 week trial period. A meeting held on 28 October determined Mrs C needed permanent residential care. Sadly, Mrs C passed away 4 November. The Council undertook a light touch retrospective financial assessment in December. On the information it had available it assessed Mrs C should contribute £159.06 per week towards her care fees. The Council invoiced Mr B as her Executor for the total amount of £931.65 in February 2022.
6. Mr B complained and said he was shocked to receive the invoice. He believed the first 4 weeks of Mrs C’s care would be free of charge. The Council investigated Mr B’s complaints. It apologised for not issuing a letter confirming the financial assessment in December when it completed it and also apologised for not putting the account on hold whilst investigating his concerns, resulting in him continuing to receive demands for payment. It explained it had spoken to Mr B’s brother about paying for residential care in September and November 2021. Mr B said his brother had no recollection of the telephone discussions. The Council says it did not say Mrs C’s care would be free of charge.
7. Mr B says the Council should waive the first 4 weeks of care charges because he was told it was not chargeable and has asked the Ombudsman to consider his complaint. We could not make this finding. I have not seen any evidence that Mr B or Mrs C was told her care would be free of charge. While Mr B’s brother cannot recall being told Mrs C’s care would be subject to a financial assessment, case notes record, information about charging subject to a financial assessment, was discussed with Mr B’s brother on 21 and 22 September and 2 November.
8. The Council has apologised for the delay in completing the assessment and for sending reminders when it said it would put them on hold. We could achieve no more than this.
9. Mr B says he has not had all the answers he wants to questions about the delay in completing a financial assessment. However, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to provide these answers for him. There is no significant injustice to Mrs C’s estate from the delay. Mrs C needed a care home placement and her financial assessment determined she had enough income to contribute towards her care costs.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because further investigation could not add to the Council’s response or make a different finding.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman