Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide information about care charges. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. We will also not investigate complaints about poor communication. That is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council did not tell her it would charge for her late mother’s, Mrs Y’s care after six weeks. She said it failed to tell her the cost of that care and that it took six months to send the invoice.
2. Mrs X is also unhappy about how the Council communicated with her. She said it incorrectly sent invoices to Mrs Y’s home address. She said the Council did not offer enough support finding Mrs Y a permanent care placement.
3. Mrs X wants the Council to waive the care fees. She also wants it to apologise for its communication and for how it spoke to her on the telephone.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council failed to tell her Mrs Y’s care would be chargeable after six weeks. The Council stated it told Mrs X it would charge for the care in a telephone call. It offered to complete a financial assessment to determine her contributions. It said Mrs X declined the assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
8. In addition, Mrs X does not dispute Mrs Y is a full-cost payer. As a full-cost payer she was liable to pay for her care after the six-week period. The Council has charged for care Mrs Y received. Therefore, any decision to charge has not caused a significant injustice.
9. We will also not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in invoicing for Mrs Y’s care and for not setting out the care costs at the outset. The Council said the financial assessment process triggered invoicing. As Mrs X refused a financial assessment, its finance team did not issue the invoice. It said it had introduced service improvements to address this. It said Mrs X could contact it to arrange a repayment plan for the care costs. I am satisfied with the steps the Council has taken to address the delays in issuing the invoices. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.
10. Mrs X said the Council did not do enough to find Mrs Y permanent care placement. The Council does not have a statutory responsibility to arrange care where a person is a full-cost payer, and their needs are to be met in a care home. The Council sign posted Mrs X to the correct agency for support. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
11. Mrs X is also unhappy more generally with the Council’s communication, and for it sending invoices to Mrs Y’s address. The Council has already apologised for any poor communication and for sending the invoice to Mrs Y’s address. It also apologised for a telephone call Mrs X was unhappy with. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman