Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council charged him for his residential care. This is not enough injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms Z complains on behalf of Mr X that the Council’s failure to provide occupational therapy (OT) equipment led him to need residential care from 13 November 2022 to 13 February 2023. Ms Z says that as a result, Mr X should not have to pay for his care. She also says the Council wrongly classified Mr X as a short-term resident and not a temporary resident.

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
• 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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X was hospitalised after having a stroke. At the end of September 2022, he was discharged home with a reablement care package supported by OT equipment. The Council carried out a financial assessment and said Mr X could afford to contribute towards the cost of his care. Several weeks later, Mr X agreed to go back into residential care because his care package was not working.
6. Mr X complained to us about the period up to 13 November 2022. He complained the OT equipment was not available which led to him needing to return to residential care. He said that as a result, he should not have to pay for his care.
7. We have already investigated these complaints. We found the lack of OT equipment was only one of the reasons why Mr X returned to residential accommodation. Therefore, we did not find the Council at fault for charging Mr X for his care.
8. Ms Z has made the same substantive arguments as she did in the previous complaint about why the lack of OT equipment meant Mr X should not pay for his care after 13 November. Because we have already investigated these matters, I will not reinvestigate them.
9. Ms Z says that the Council has wrongly treated Mr X as a short-term resident instead of a temporary resident. Whether someone is short-term or temporary can be important because councils must disregard certain housing-related costs if someone is a temporary resident, thus reducing the amount they may contribute to their care.
10. However, in this case, Mr X owns a second home. Therefore, it is unlikely the amount he had to contribute was affected to any meaningful degree by how the Council has classified him. For that reason, there is not enough injustice to warrant an investigation.
11. Ms Z is also critical the Council failed to apply its discretion to not charge Mr X for his care because of the circumstances of his case. The Council was aware of Mr X’s circumstances and decided not to exercise its discretion. This was a decision it was entitled to make.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate because we have already investigated Mr X’s substantive complaint. In relation to the new matters raised, any injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman