Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the Council charging her husband, Mr B, for respite care she was told would be free of charge. This is because the Council has investigated her complaints and we are satisfied the recommendations identified as an outcome of the Council’s investigation, remedy the injustice caused by the fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained she was told by a Social Worker in 2019 that her husband, Mr B, was entitled to six weeks free respite care within a 12-month period. In addition, Mrs B says invoices she received did not correlate to periods of respite care Mr B received and she did not receive a copy of Mr B’s Care Needs Assessment or a breakdown of the costs. Mrs B says the Council should cancel the charge Mr B incurred for respite care in 2019 and 2020 and he should commence paying for care when he became a permanent resident in a different home.

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:

• 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.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council investigated Mrs B’s complaints and found no evidence Mrs B was told respite care would be free of charge. We could not make a finding on this point when there is no record of Mrs B being told there would be no charge for respite care and were not present when the conversation took place.
6. The Council acknowledged there was a four-month delay in completing the financial assessment by which time Mr B had moved into permanent residential care in a different home. The Investigation Officer explained the invoices Mrs B received were correct including periods when Mr B was in hospital but recommended the Council review the invoices, issue new ones, and make it clear what date relates to which care home for clarity and transparency.
7. The investigation found evidence of Mr B’s Care Needs Assessment, Support Plan and letter explaining his contribution towards his fees but found no evidence that Mrs B had been sent copies of these documents. It recommended the Council ensure Mrs B receives copies of relevant documents. It recommended the Council arrange a payment plan with Mrs B to pay the care fees owed.
8. The Council agreed for £250 to be offset against Mr B’s outstanding debt in recognition of the distress caused. While Mrs B wants the Council to cancel the entire debt, we are satisfied with the actions taken by the Council. We could not make a finding on what Mrs B was told in 2019 when there is no record of it and are satisfied the injustice caused to Mrs B has been remedied by the Council implementing the recommendations of the Independent Investigator.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because we are satisfied there is no unremedied injustice warranting an ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman