Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging Mrs X’s son for the full cost of his care. She says the Council failed to tell her son that he may have to pay for the care he receives. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council charging her son for the full cost of his care. She complains the Council provided conflicting information about how much it would charge her son and that it failed to tell her son he may have to pay for the care he receives.

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. (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. Mrs X’s son, Mr Y, receives care and support services.
6. In December 2021, the Council completed a financial reassessment to work out how much Mr Y needed to pay towards the cost of his care. Following the reassessment, the Council wrote to Mr X to advise him that he was responsible for paying for the full cost of his care because he had savings over the capital limit of £23,250. The Council advised it would backdate the charges to April 2021.
7. Mrs X was unhappy as she said the Council had not previously told Mr Y that he may need to pay for the care he received and that it had provided conflicting information about how much it would charge.
8. The Council has provided evidence that it sent Mr Y a letter in March 2019. This letter noted “if you pay the full cost of your care, it is because our records show your capital is above £23,250…”. Therefore, I am satisfied this was enough information for Mr Y or Mrs X to be able to infer that if his capital was above £23,350, he would be responsible for the full cost of his care. The letter is also clear that if Mr Y’s capital changes, he needed to tell the Council as it could affect his charges. Finally, the letter notes that if the Council discovered any changes that affected the amount Mr Y needed to pay, then the Council can backdate any increase to the start of the financial year.
9. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as there is insufficient evidence of fault. This is because Mr Y and Mrs X had enough information available to understand how the Council would calculate Mr Y’s charges should he have above the capital limit of £23,250, and that the Council would backdate any charges.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman