Kent County Council (22 016 581)

Category : Adult care services > Charging

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 30 Mar 2023

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to charge Mr X’s mother the full cost of her care home placement. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the way the Council made its decision.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to charge his mother the full cost of her care home placement. He says the Council had agreed to only charge his mother the Council’s rate because she objected to being in the care home.

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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
  2. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
  2. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. In October 2020, Mr X’s mother, Mrs A, was discharged from hospital into a care home.
  2. In January 2021, the Council held a best interest meeting, which Mr X attended. During this meeting, the Council confirmed Mrs A’s placement at the care home would become chargeable, but the Council would only charge Mrs A the Council’s rate, not the actual cost of the placement. This was due to Mrs A objecting to being in the care home. The weekly cost charged was just over £500.
  3. In May 2021, the Council held a further best interest meeting. At this meeting, Mrs A’s long-term placement was agreed. It was agreed it was in Mrs A’s best interest to be supported in a care home. The Council accepted there were some delays in arranging this.
  4. In December 2021, the Council made Mrs A’s care home provision long term. At this point, the Council decided to charge Mrs A for the full cost of the placement. The Council did not notify Mr X about this change.
  5. In March 2022, following Mr X querying the increased charges, the Council agreed to only apply the full charges from March 2022. The Council said it agreed to this as it recognised it failed to advise Mr X of the change in costs from December 2021.
  6. Mr X says the Council should only charge his mother £500 per week up to the point Mrs A became a self-funded at the end of May 2022. He says this is because his mother’s objections to being in the care home remained.
  7. The Council followed all appropriate procedures before deciding the care home would be Mrs A’s permanent long-term provision. The Council also ensured Mrs A’s wishes and views were fully represented as it recognised Mrs A objected to being in the care home. Mrs A’s representative challenged the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) that were in place to keep her in the care home, but these objections were not upheld by the Court.
  8. Further, Mr X relies on the fact the Council originally agreed to charge at the Council’s rate because Mrs A objected to the placement. However, the Council is entitled to change its decision. The Council has provided clear reasons for why its position changed once the best interest decision was made regarding Mrs A’s long term placement. As this decision has been properly made, the Ombudsman cannot find fault with the decision itself.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the way the Council made its decision.

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