Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a delay in providing information about the cost of his mother’s care. We asked the Council to take action to resolve the complaint early and it has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X and make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to inform the family about the cost of his mother, Mrs Y’s care when she moved to a care home. He also complained it delayed carrying out a financial assessment and offering the option of a deferred payment agreement.
2. Mr X said the Council’s delay and lack of information meant Mrs Y was financially disadvantaged. He said, if he had known she would need to pay the full cost of her care, he could have decided what to do with her property earlier. Mr X wants the Council to recalculate Mrs Y’s contribution based on the position in March 2023 when the Council provided appropriate financial information.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

8. Mrs Y moved to a care home in 2020. At the time she was assessed as not having the capacity to make the discharge decision herself and there was no-one with a Lasting Power of Attorney to make decisions on her behalf, so the Council made a “best interests” decision that she should be cared for in a care home. Because she was discharged from hospital under a COVID-19 discharge scheme, she did not have to contribute to the cost of her care until December 2021.
9. Mrs Y was aware of the charging regime for adult social care because she had been receiving a care package at home before she was admitted to hospital. Further, the Council asked Mr X to complete a finance form in May 2020, which he did. However, there was no need for the Council to carry out a financial assessment to determine how much Mrs Y needed to pay towards the cost of her care until it became chargeable in December 2021.
10. The Council carried out a financial assessment and informed Mr X how much Mrs Y would need to pay towards her care in June 2022. In its complaint response, it accepted a delay in doing so. It also accepted that it had not applied a 12 week disregard, which would mean the value of Mrs Y’s home was not taken into account for 12 weeks, when it carried out the financial assessment in 2022. The Council apologised and carried out a fresh financial assessment.
11. In March 2023, the Council wrote to Mr X to explain Mrs Y needed to pay £152.20 per week towards her care from December 2021 and she had to pay the full costs of her care from March 2022 because the value of her home meant she had more than £23,250 in capital. It also provided information about its deferred payment scheme, which allows people to defer paying for their care until their property has been sold, and a form to complete if Mr X wanted to enter into a deferred payment agreement (DPA).
12. Mr X was unhappy with the outcome and appealed the financial assessment in April 2023. He said Mrs Y had suffered a financial disadvantage due to the Council’s delay. The Council responded in October 2023. It apologised for its delay in responding to the appeal and its delay in carrying out the financial assessment. It added that its care management team should have explained about charging for adult social care on visits.
13. Mr X signed and returned a DPA form in November 2023, but the Council is not able to progress this until Mr X provides evidence he has been appointed as a deputy for Mrs Y.

My assessment

14. We usually expect people to complain to us within 12 months of the events complained about, although we can exercise discretion to consider late complaints if there are good reasons for the delay. In this case, Mr X complained to us in November 2023. Since he was complaining on behalf of Mrs Y, we asked him to complete a consent form. Mr X mistakenly understood he could not pursue the complaint until he had been appointed as Mrs Y’s deputy because she was not able to sign the consent form. That involved a court application that took 12 months to complete. In the circumstances, I decided there were good reasons for considering the complaint, despite the delay in pursuing it.
15. The Council accepts it delayed in carrying out a financial assessment, initially failed to apply a 12-week property disregard and delayed responding to Mr X's appeal. If we investigated further, it is likely we would find fault with the Council for those failings. It is also likely we would find fault with the Council for a delay in providing DPA information. These faults have caused uncertainty for Mr X about what Mrs Y would need to pay towards her care and there was a delay in him being able to make an informed choice about what to do with her property. That said, the Council was entitled to charge Mrs Y from December 2021. Further, Mr X would not have been in a position to make decisions about Mrs Y’s property until he was appointed as a deputy, although I accept that he may have applied for deputyship earlier if he had received financial information in early 2022.
16. We asked the Council to agree to our proposals to resolve the complaint early and it has agreed to take the following action within one month of the date of the final decision:
• apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused by the above failures in line with our guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice;
• pay him £500 to remedy the injustice. For the avoidance of doubt, this payment cannot be offset against Mrs Y’s outstanding care costs;
• remind relevant staff of the importance of giving as much information as possible about the likely costs of adult social care at the time the care is arranged and keeping a record of the advice and information given. This should include explaining that, if a person moves into residential care, the value of their property will be considered when deciding how much they should pay towards the cost of their care, which is likely to mean they need to pay the full cost of their care.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused and improving its services for others.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman