Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council misleading Mr X about the cost of his father’s care home placement. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council misled them about the cost of his father’s placement in a care home. He says the family believed the placement would be free and that they only needed to pay the top up fee.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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. Mr X’s father, Mr Z, needed a placement in a care home. Mr X’s sister, Ms Y, was the main point of contact with the Council in arranging the placement.
6. Between October and November 2021, the Council was in discussion with Ms Y regarding the options for a care home placement. They discussed care homes with top ups. This meant that the fees charged by the care home was more than the Council’s rate, and family can choose to ‘top up’ to meet the difference.
7. The Council provided evidence it told Ms Y about a care home that had a bed available which would not incur any top up fees. However, Ms Y decided to proceed with a care home which did have top up fees.
8. In January 2022, the Council sent Ms Y a copy of its charging booklet and financial assistance declaration form. The charging booklet detailed that if an individual had more than £23,250 in capital, then they would be charged the full cost of the placement. The evidence available shows Ms Y received this email.
9. Ms Y also signed a form which noted a financial assessment would be completed for Mr Z to determine the charges for care services. The form also noted that charges for the care services would start from the day care is received.
10. Mr X said the signature was not his sisters. However, the Council provided a copy of the email chain between the Council and Ms Y which showed Ms Y had offered to send the Council a photo of her signature to use on the form as she was unable to sign it electronically. The social worker agreed this would be suitable to use.
11. In April 2022, the Council sent Ms Y a copy of the financial assessment. This financial assessment clearly detailed Mr Z had over the capital limit and so was responsible for paying the full cost of his care.
12. I acknowledge it took a few months for the financial assessment to be completed. However, records showed Ms Y was aware her father had savings over the capital limit. Therefore, I am satisfied Ms Y was provided with sufficient information to enable her to understand it was likely her father would be assessed as responsible for the full cost of his care.
13. An investigation is not justified as there is insufficient evidence of fault. This is because the Council provided sufficient information to Ms Y about its charging arrangements and appropriately completed the financial assessment before advising Ms Y that Mr Z was responsible for the full cost of his care.
14. Even if we were to accept the Council provided insufficient information, we still would not investigate the complaint as the fault would not have caused any significant injustice as Mr Z had capital over the upper limit. If the fault had not occurred, Mr Z would be in the same position as he is now as he would still be responsible for paying for the full cost of his care.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman