Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about backdated care charges for residential care. This is because the Council has properly conducted a financial assessment to determine care charges. We consider there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mr X) complains on behalf of his mother (Mrs Y) who is in residential care and for whom he has power of attorney (POA). Mr X complains about the Council issuing an invoice for backdated care services without notifying him as POA of any changes. He says the backdated costs for residential care deplete all of Mrs Y’s remaining funds and so she requires Council funded care.
2. In summary, Mr X says the alleged fault has meant him being unjustly threatened with legal proceedings and has caused unnecessary distress and uncertainty. He wants the Council to accept it has made an error and pay for the care.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. A financial assessment is used to calculate how much a person should contribute towards the cost of their care. The rules for carrying out the assessment, and calculating the contribution, are contained in the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and explained in Statutory Guidance. Where a person is in residential care, the person’s capital (including property and savings) is taken into account. Where the person receiving care has capital at or below the upper capital limit (currently £23,250), but more than the lower capital limit (currently £14,250), they may be charged £1 per week for every £250 in capital between the 2 amounts. Where a person has capital above the upper capital limit, they will need to pay the full cost of their care and support.
6. In May 2022, Mrs Y moved into residential care. Before then, she received funded care and support services in the community because her capital and income did not exceed the threshold. Mrs Y lived in her property and so the value of this was disregarded from the financial assessment. Since moving into residential care, Mrs Y’s property was included in her capital because she no longer lived there. This meant her capital exceeded the upper capital limit and that she would need to pay for the total cost of her care. The Council applied a 12-week property disregard from the date Mrs Y moved into residential care in accordance with the rules and it notified Mr X as her POA that she would be liable for the full cost of her care. The Council offered a deferred payment agreement if the balance could not be paid in full. The loan provided under this agreement would be repayable by Mrs Y when her property is sold.
7. On the evidence available, the Council has properly conducted a financial assessment following Mrs Y’s move into residential care and determined, with reference to the capital limits, she is liable to pay the full cost of her care. The reason for this change is due to the value of Mrs Y’s property being treated as capital. The evidence shows that Mr X was included in the Council’s financial assessment as Mrs Y’s POA and he was properly notified of the changes. I am therefore unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault by the Council with respect to its financial assessment and decision to charge.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman