Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council’s delays in carrying out her father’s financial assessment meant he was unable to make an informed decision about his placement. Any injustice is speculative so there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council delayed in carrying out her father, Mr Z’s, financial assessment.
2. Mrs X says that as a result, Mr Z was denied the chance of moving to a cheaper care home.

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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. If a care home resident has capital and savings of over £23,250, they must pay for the full costs of their care.
7. Mr Z moved into a care home in February 2023. A Council social worker requested a financial assessment in March. There was some correspondence between the Council and Mrs X that month whilst the Council tried to gather all the relevant information.
8. Mrs X heard nothing further and chased the Council in May but heard nothing. The Council was informed of Mr Z’s death in August and contacted Mrs X. The Council told Mrs X that Mr Z had been a self-funder during the whole period he was in the care home and therefore was eligible to pay the full costs of his care. This was because on his death, once Mr Z’s care costs had been deducted, his capital remained above the threshold.
9. Mrs X complained about the delays in carrying out Mr Z’s financial assessment. She said if Mr Z had known he had to pay for his care, he would have moved to a cheaper care home. The Council apologised but said that the care fees needed to be paid because Mr Z and Mrs X knew that he might have to make a financial contribution.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. Mrs X states Mr Z would have moved if he knew he would have to pay the full costs of his care. However, this is too speculative and we cannot know now what Mr Z would have done or what other factors would have had a bearing on the decision. Therefore, the Council's apology is sufficient any injustice experienced as a result of the delays. Further investigation could achieve nothing more.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman