Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the cost of adult social care. The Council failed to explain why the reablement team was involved in this case and to clarify that it was not free. The Council also delayed completing its financial assessment and confirming the costs of the care. It has apologised for the upset and confusion and waived £100 from the bill. We are satisfied with the actions it has taken to acknowledge the impact of its fault. If there was no fault the full bill would be due.

The complaint

1. Mr D says Ms E was told she would receive six weeks free reablement care when she left hospital. Eleven months later the Council sent a bill for the care support. Ms E has found this stressful. Ms E wants the Council to waive the care costs as believes she should have had six weeks of free care.

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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council was responsible to assess what adult social care support Ms E needed when leaving hospital. The Council must also complete a financial assessment to decide what, if anything, Ms E would pay toward her care support.
7. Reablement care is a free short term support package to help people regain skills such as cooking meals and washing. Reablement is free for up to six weeks, though most people only need it for 1 or 2 weeks.
8. Ms E was not assessed as needing reablement, Ms E needed a long-term package of care support. The Council discussed this with Ms E’s son before Ms E left hospital. Ms E’s son had standing to deal with Ms E’s finances, the Council explained information about paying for care.
9. The care agency the Council sourced could not start immediately. Rather than delay Ms E’s discharge from hospital the reablement team stepped in to support for a few days until the care agency could start. However, this was not free reablement care but a chargeable care package. There is no evidence the Council explained this to Ms E or her son. The hospital discharge letter listed reablement as providing support, so I can see why this might cause confusion. Especially as Mr D says Ms E received information from the hospital about reablement being free for six weeks, though has provided no evidence Ms E was told she would receive this.
10. The Council then delayed completing its financial assessment and confirming how much Ms E must pay for her care. The Council did not send its first invoice until around ten months after the package of care started.
11. The Council has accepted its failings in not providing clear information about the involvement of the reablement team in this case, and the delays in confirming the costs of the care package. The Council has apologised for the upset and confusion caused by its errors and has reduced Ms E’s bill by £100.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms E’s complaint because we could not add to the Council’s investigation, and we are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken in response to the complaint. The Council assessed Ms E needed a care package and would need to contribute to the cost. There is no evidence Ms E needed reablement care or was ever told she would receive reablement care. The Council has caused confusion by not explaining why reablement was involved in this case, and by the delay confirming the costs of the package. The Council’s apology and £100 reduction is enough to acknowledge the impact of its fault. If there was no fault Ms E would have been responsible to pay the full assessed contribution for her care from when she left hospital so we would not recommend the Council waive those costs.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman