Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’ complaint about the Council’s incorrect advice about the cost of her mother, Mrs Y’s care. The Council has apologised, offered £500 to remedy the injustice caused and taken steps to prevent recurrence of the fault. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council gave the family incorrect advice about the cost of her mother, Mrs Y’s short term residential care home stay. She also said the family was not told it could choose a care home not on the Council’s list.
2. Ms X said, following the financial assessment, the Council said Mrs Y would need to pay the full cost of her care, which was considerably more than expected.

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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Costs information

6. Mrs Y moved to a care home in October 2023 after a number of falls at home. In December 2023, the placement was reviewed. The Council’s record stated:
• Mrs Y had agreed to a short term placement where she could have more therapy before deciding on a long term plan;
• Mrs Y owned her own property and had savings over the capital limit;
• Mrs Y and her family “are aware she is expected to fund her own care”; and
• The Council’s charging policy information leaflet was given to Ms X.
7. Following this, in mid-January 2024, an officer told the family Mrs Y would only need to pay part of the cost of her care at around the amount of her state pension when it was arranging short term residential care.
8. Following a financial assessment in late February 2024, the Council said Mrs Y would need to pay the full cost of her care at £1,350 per week. Ms X complained the family had been misled about how much Mrs Y needed to pay.
9. In its complaint response, the Council accepted it had been aware at the outset that Mrs Y had savings over the capital limit and would therefore need to pay the full cost of her care. It apologised, offered to pay Mrs Y £500 to remedy the uncertainty caused, and set out the steps it would take to prevent a recurrence of the fault.
10. Where a council fails to give proper advice about the likely costs of care, we would usually recommend a payment to recognise the injustice caused. We would not require the Council to waive fees for the care provided as it is entitled to charge for the care provided. In this case, the Council has accepted fault, and taken appropriate steps both to remedy the injustice caused and prevent recurrence. We will not investigate this complaint further because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Choice of care home

11. The Council provided a list of care homes for the family to consider. Ms X said it did not explain the family could consider other care homes not on that list. She also said only one of the care homes listed said it had a place available and could meet Mrs Y’s needs. There is no indication the family asked the Council at the time whether there were other options, given only one home could offer a place or sought any other advice about choosing a care home.
12. Whilst there may have been some misunderstanding, it appears the Council simply gave the family a list of care homes they could consider, and the family chose one. There is no indication the Council sought to restrict their choice. We will not consider this complaint further because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Complaints handling

13. I note there was a delay in responding to the complaint, but the Council did fully respond to the concerns raised in August 2024.
14. We will not investigate this further because we do not investigate complaints handling where we are not investigating the underlying complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the poor costs information because the Council has taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice caused and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. We will not investigate the complaint about restricting the family’s choice of care home because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman