Staffordshire County Council (22 016 702)
Category : Adult care services > Charging
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 27 Mar 2023
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s pursuit of the full cost of Mr Y’s late father’s care fees. There was some fault by the Council in the financial assessment process and in not obtaining a written agreement for Mr Y’s care placement. But there is not enough evidence of Council fault leading to the injustices claimed to warrant us investigating.
The complaint
- Mr X is Mr Y’s son. Mr Y had Alzheimer’s and lived in a care home in the months before his death. Mr X complains the Council:
- is unfairly seeking payment of the full cost of Mr Y’s care fees for the period before he died;
- is seeking the payment even though neither he nor Mr Y signed an agreement to pay the care charge.
- Mr X says if the family had know Mr Y was liable for the full care fees, they would have looked for alternative provision. He says the matter has caused upset and placed a heavy burden on him and the rest of the family. Mr X wants the Council to waive the care fees and rescind the invoice issued just after Mr Y’s death.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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 any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information from Mr X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- The Council explained to Mr X and his family that the cost of Mr Y’s stay at the care home was chargeable. They invoiced Mr Y for an interim contribution of £156 per week while the financial assessment was finalised. This shows the family knew there was a charge for the care after the non-chargeable period ended. Officers then assessed Mr Y’s finances to determine the specific amount due from Mr Y. They needed to determine whether he had access to assets over £23,250. If he did, he would be liable to pay the full cost of his care from the point at which his placement became chargeable. Once they determined Mr Y’s finances, they could issue an invoice based on the contribution he was assessed to have to make to his care, taking account of all interim charges he had paid.
- There was initial delay of about two months in the Council asking for information about Mr Y’s finances. But the majority of delay to the financial assessment process was not caused by the Council. In any event, that delay has no bearing on whether Mr Y was liable to pay the full fees.
- The Council then contacted Mr X on three occasions over a period of three months, asking whether Mr Y had inherited funds after his wife’s death earlier in 2022. Officers left messages asking Mr X to provide the information they required to finalise Mr Y’s financial assessment and determine the correct care fee. Mr X says he did not respond to these contacts. Given Mr X’s lack of a response to their requests for information about Mr Y’s finances, the Council finalised the financial assessment assuming he had access to assets over £23,250. Officers were entitled to make that decision so they could complete the delayed assessment, and it was not fault for them to do so.
- Mr X has not disputed that Mr Y had more than the £23,250 during the period for which the full care fees have been charged. If Mr X wished to provide evidence to inform the Council’s decision on Mr Y’s finances during his time in the care home, he could have done so by responding to their requests for that information. If Mr X now does dispute that Mr Y’s finances meant he was liable to pay the full cost of the care, he might choose not to pay the invoice. It would then be for the Council to decide how it proceeds to recover what officers consider is a debt due from Mr Y’s estate. If the Council takes the matter to court, Mr X can put before the court the evidence he holds on Mr Y’s assets.
- The Council accepts it did not hold a signed agreement from Mr Y or Mr X regarding the care placement. This is unfortunate but did not make a difference to the service Mr Y received and whether further payment was due from Mr Y for that provision. Mr Y’s receipt of the service and the interim payments made demonstrate acceptance of the placement. The liability for care fees is determined by a financial assessment. The absence of a written agreement to the placement does not mean the care fees are not due.
- Mr X says if the family had know Mr Y was liable for the full care fees, they would have sought a different placement for him. But it was not delay or other fault by the Council which meant the family did not know sooner the outcome of Mr Y’s financial assessment which would determine his care fees liability. The Council could have made its decision several months sooner if the family had provided the information about Mr Y’s assets when it was first sought by officers.
- I recognise Mr X and his family would have been caused distress due to the timing of the request for payment of the care fees, coming just after Mr Y’s death. But the financial assessment could have been finalised, and the care fee invoice issued while Mr Y was still alive, had the Council received responses to its requests for information about his assets.
- There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council leading to the injustices claimed here to warrant us investigating.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council which caused the injustices claimed to warrant us investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman