Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care charges. There is not enough evidence of fault, and further investigation is unlikely to reach a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr C says the Council is wrongly asking him to pay towards his adult social care support. Mr C says his income has not changed so he cannot understand why he previously did not have to pay and now must. Mr C complains about the Council’s correspondence; delay in receiving a letter meant he had half the time to respond to the Council’s deadline. Mr C has found the Council’s letters threatening and feels harassed.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further 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. Mr C receives care support at home, arranged by the Council. The Council can charge for the care support following a financial assessment to decide what someone can afford to pay.
6. In 2023, following a financial assessment, the Council told Mr C he did not need to pay anything for his care support. A few months later, following another financial assessment, the Council told Mr C he must pay £10.55 per week. Mr C cannot understand what has changed.
7. There was an error in the figures used in the earlier financial assessment, it showed Mr C’s income as less than he receives. The Council could backdate Mr C’s charges because Mr C has a responsibility to tell the Council that he had a higher income than stated on the assessment documents. However, the Council has decided not to backdate those charges. Mr C has benefited as he should have been paying for his care previously.
8. There is no error in the recent financial assessment, and so the Council is correct to ask Mr C to pay £10.55 per week towards his care support.
9. There was a delay in the Council sending the letter to Mr C, which gave fourteen days to respond but by the time Mr C received it there were seven days remaining. Although this caused Mr C some concern, the Council would allow more time if asked.
10. Mr C is also concerned at the ‘threatening’ language used in the Council’s letters. The Council has a duty to tell people what might happen if they do not pay the assessed charges, including the possibility the Council will take court action. This is not intended to threaten, but to be open and transparent. This is not fault of the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault causing significant injustice to Mr C. There was an earlier error in figures, which Mr C benefitted from. There is no error in the recent figures, and the charges are correctly due. The delay in posting a letter does not warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman