Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the financial assessment completed for Mrs X’s father. She is unhappy about the amount her father has been assessed as having to pay towards the cost of his care. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the financial assessment completed for her father. She is unhappy about the amount her father has been assessed as having to pay towards the cost of his care. She says the Council has not considered the fact her mother is on limited income and cannot afford to pay the household bills.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue 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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X’s father, Mr A, was discharged from hospital into a care home.
6. The Care Act 2014 (section 14 and 17) provides a legal framework for charging for care and support. It enables a council to decide whether to charge a person when it is arranging to meet their care and support needs, or a carer’s support needs. The charging rules for residential care are set out in the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and councils should have regard to the Care and Support Statutory Guidance.
7. When the Council arranges a care home placement, it must follow the regulations when undertaking a financial assessment to decide how much a person must pay towards the cost of their residential care.
8. The Council said it sent Mr A and his family a copy of its charging policy in May 2023. There is a case record in May 2023 which noted Mr A’s family had contacted the Council to express concern about his client contributions. This suggests the family were aware Mr A would be assessed to work out how much he can afford to contribute towards the cost of his care.
9. Therefore, I am satisfied, on balance, the Council did provide information to Mr A and his family to inform him that he would be charged for the care and support services he received.
10. During its complaint response, the Council accepted the first financial assessment completed for Mr A was wrong. This is because the Council failed to halve Mr X’s private/occupational pension as he was paying half this pension to his wife. The Council corrected this and issued a new financial assessment. Therefore, an investigation would not lead to a different outcome as the Council has already implemented a suitable remedy for the fault accepted.
11. I have reviewed the Council’s second financial assessment. I can see the Council appropriately halved Mr A’s occupational/private pension and ensured the joint savings were halved too. The Council also ensured Mr A was left with the personal expenses allowance (the amount of money a council must ensure a resident provided with care in a care home is left with after any charges are made for their care) and considered his share of the household bills.
12. Therefore, I am satisfied the Council has completed the assessment in line with the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and statutory guidance.
13. An investigation is therefore not justified as we are not likely to find fault with the way the Council completed the second financial assessment.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs 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