Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging Mr X’s father for care services he did not need. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council charged his father for care services which he did not need. He says the Council did not follow the correct process to establish if his father had any care needs as it did not complete a care assessment following the re-enablement period.

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
• 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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s father, Mr A, was discharged from hospital.
6. During its complaint investigation, the Council confirmed it did not assess Mr A until the end of January 2021. The Council accepted it delayed in completing the assessment but said this was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and because a telephone assessment was not appropriate due to Mr A’s needs. The Council said it would ensure no charges for care were applied prior to this date.
7. The Council’s assessment of Mr A’s care and support needs identified Mr A had ongoing needs that required four daily care visits. The Council accepted it failed to provide a copy of the care assessment to Mr X and Mr A.
8. In July 2021, Mr X told the Council Mr A did not need four daily care visits. The Council said this was the first time Mr A or Mr X had raised concerns the care arrangements were not appropriate for Mr A’s needs.
9. In August 2021, the Council confirmed with Mr A that he was happy for his care package to be reduced. The Council said it needed to check with Mr A and take his views as he had mental capacity to decide his care and support needs. The Council subsequently reduced Mr A’s care package to two daily visits.
10. The Council completed a financial assessment which determined Mr A had above the capital threshold. Therefore, Mr A was responsible for the full cost of his care.
11. As part of our enquiries, I asked Mr X whether he had raised concerns about the care package prior to July 2021. Mr X did not respond to my enquiries. There is no evidence Mr X or Mr A raised concerns any earlier.
12. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as it would not lead to a different outcome. This is because the Council has already accepted it delayed in completing the care and support assessment and remedied this appropriately by ensuring Mr A was not charged for care and support prior to January 2021.
13. Further, an investigation is not likely to find fault with the Council for charging Mr A for his four daily care visits. This is because the Council appropriately completed a care and support assessment which determined Mr A needed four times daily care visits. If Mr A or Mr X had any concerns that this was not needed, it would have been reasonable to expect them to have raised concerns with the Council earlier.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman