Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s mother’s care charges. Mrs X say the Council delayed in responding to her appeal over the final care charge. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her mother’s care charges. She says the Council delayed in responding to their appeal over the final care invoice and that it took them over a year to request payment. Mrs X wants the Council to wipe the debt owed.

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), as amended, section 34(B))

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. Mrs X’s mother received care and support services. The Council was in the process of setting up a deferred payment agreement. This agreement meant the Council would pay for Mrs X’s mother’s care charges first on her behalf. The Council is then repaid from the proceeds of the sale of Mrs X’s mother’s property.
6. Mrs X mother passed away before the deferred payment agreement was completed. However, the evidence available showed Mrs X was aware of the intention to set up the agreement and that her mother was responsible for paying for her care and support.
7. The Council sent Mrs X an invoice for her mother’s care charges. The invoice noted the amount repayable was just over £35,500. Mrs X appealed this charge and the Council agreed to reduce the debt by the costs associated with marketing the property. This brought the balance repayable to just over £34,715.
8. Mrs X continued to dispute the balance and appealed to the Council in August 2020. The Council said in this correspondence, Mrs X offered to make a total payment of just over £24,300.
9. The Council did not respond to Mrs X’s appeal at the time. The Council said this was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to focus resources on critical services at the time.
10. Mrs X said because she had not heard from the Council, she thought the Council had decided to wipe the debt. There is no evidence Mrs X contacted the Council to follow up on the appeal, or to confirm with the Council whether the debt was still outstanding. Mrs X said the Council has now contacted her asking for payment of the outstanding debt.
11. During its complaint investigation, the Council agreed to Mrs X’s payment offer of just over £24,300.
12. An investigation is not justified as it would not lead to a different outcome. This is because the Council’s offer to reduce the debt by more than £10,000 is generous and is far more than what we would have recommended or achieved.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman