Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to properly explain to her and her daughter what her daughter’s assessed contributions were. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. In addition, any potential delay in informing Mrs X of her daughter’s new assessed contributions has not caused any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council sent her an invoice stating her daughter owed just under £4000 in care charges. She says the Council failed to properly explain to her daughter what her contributions were. Mrs X says her daughter cannot pay the invoice.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement

(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 Care Act 2014 and the Care and Support Statutory Guidance sets out that councils can charge for care. Councils must complete a financial assessment to work out how much someone should contribute towards the cost of their care.
6. The Council sent Mrs X an email in July 2021, attaching a letter and a copy of its completed financial assessment for Ms A. In the letter, the Council advised Mrs X to claim for the health allowance element of Universal Credit (UC). The Council also advised that even if Mrs X did not claim the benefit, the Council was entitled to include it as notional income in the financial assessment. The Council told Mrs X that if the benefit was awarded, it would complete a financial reassessment.
7. The Council sent Mrs X another email in August 2021, again attaching a letter and a copy of its completed financial reassessment. The letter again advised Mrs X to apply for the health allowance element of UC and to let the Council know when she had done this so that the Council could complete a financial reassessment.
8. An investigation is not justified as we are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions. This is because it appropriately told Mrs X she needed to tell the Council if her daughter was awarded the benefit. The Council was also clear that it would need to complete a financial reassessment as the benefit would likely affect her daughter’s assessed contributions. Mrs X therefore had the information available to be aware that her daughter’s contributions might increase if she was awarded the benefit.
9. The Council completed a financial review in August 2022. It was during this review the Council was made aware by the Department of Work and Pensions that Ms A had been awarded the health allowance element of UC, with effect from February 2021. The Council therefore backdated its financial assessment to September 2021, the date the direct payments started.
10. The evidence suggests the Council did not make Mrs X aware of the new assessed charges until October 2022, when it issued the invoice requesting payment of just under £4000 and an email which outlined the weekly assessed charges.
11. While this could amount to fault, I am satisfied this has not caused any significant injustice to justify an investigation. This is because Mrs X is still in the same position she would have been, even if she had been told earlier of the new assessed charges. This is because it remains the case her daughter must still pay her assessed contributions.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation. In addition, any potential delay in informing Mrs X of her daughter’s new assessed contributions has not caused any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman