Summary: There is no evidence the late Mrs X was charged incorrect contributions towards the cost of her care. The Council has already apologised for the timing of its letter requesting outstanding contributions after her death.

The complaint

1. Mr A (the complainant) complains about the way the Council assessed the finances of his late mother Mrs X. He also complains about the timing of the Council’s contact with him about outstanding debts following his mother’s death.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by the Council and by Mr A. Both parties had the opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement and I took their comments into account before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

5. A council has a duty to arrange care and support for those with eligible needs, and a power to meet both eligible and non-eligible needs in places other than care homes. A council can choose to charge for non-residential care following a person’s needs assessment. Where it decides to charge, the council must follow the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and have regard to the Care Act statutory guidance. (Care Act 2014, section 14 and 17)
6. Where a council has decided to charge for care, it must carry out a financial assessment to decide what a person can afford to pay. It must then give the person a written record of the completed assessment. A council must treat each person individually. A council must not charge more than the cost it incurs to meet a person’s assessed eligible needs.
7. People receiving care and support other than in a care home need to keep a certain level of income to cover their living costs. Councils’ financial assessments can take a person’s income and capital into consideration, but not the value of their home. After charging, a person’s income must not reduce below a weekly amount known as the minimum income guarantee (MIG). This is set by national government and reviewed each year. A council can allow people to keep more than the MIG. (Care Act 2014)

What happened

8. Mrs X began to receive a care package arranged by the Council in 2019 after discharge from hospital. Mr A says he understood at the time that if his mother had less than a certain amount in savings, she would not be liable to make any payments.
9. Mrs X died in June 2023. Mr A says he was horrified to receive a letter from the Council asking for payment of an invoice for over £500 for two months care. Mr A wrote to the Council in July saying his mother had no savings and there was insufficient money in her estate to pay the invoices. He asked the Council to investigate what he believed to be a considerable overpayment on her part since 2019.
10. In November the Council wrote to Mr A after investigating his complaint. It said Mrs A had been financially assessed on an annual basis since 2019 and explained that while (according to the Regulations) capital assets below £14,250 were not taken into account, “in all cases a means tested assessment is still completed based on their income and receipt of state benefits as well as their capital”. It did not therefore uphold that aspect of the complaint.
11. The Council said in respect of the timing of the recovery letters, this was due to the cancellation of the direct debit which paid Mrs X’s assessed contributions towards the cost of her care. It apologised that this had been received shortly after Mrs X’s funeral and offered its condolences. It added that in the case of Executors’ accounts the Council would not be aware of the circumstances at the time the letter was issued.
12. Mr A complained to the Ombudsman. He said he thought the Council had based its figures on an erroneous assumption that Mrs X had owned her own home.
13. The Council says Mrs X “did not own her house. (Mrs X) was renting the property and was receiving full Housing Benefit for rent”. The Council has shown how its financial assessment of Mrs X met the Minimum Income Guarantee, and for several years added a ‘buffer’ of 25%.

Analysis

14. The Council conducted the financial assessments in accordance with the regulations. There is no evidence of fault there.
15. Contrary to Mr A’s belief, the Council did not calculate Mrs X’s contribution as though she owned her own home.
16. The Council properly applied the MIG and for some years applied a more generous allowance.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have completed this investigation on the grounds there was no fault on the part of the Council in its calculation of Mrs X’s contribution to the cost of her care.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman