Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alledged failure by the Council to properly explain the circumstances in which care and support services would become chargeable. This is because there is insufficient evidence the Council failed to explain this to the complainant fully before providing services.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mr L) complains on behalf of his mother (Mrs Q) who has care needs which are met by the Council. Mr L received an invoice from the Council for Mrs Q’s care and disputes the charges on the basis:

• He did not receive any paperwork to formally advise Mrs Q would be charged for the care services.
• He was advised the care being given would be free for six weeks.
• It was not explained during the financial assessment process how charging works and how much Mrs Q would have to pay.

2. In summary, Mr L feels he and Mrs Q were not made fully aware that care would be chargeable. He says dealing with this matter is a cause of mental strain. As a desired outcome, he wants the Council to cancel the invoice.

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 per-son 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 this. (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. The Council offers access to a Skills for Independent Living (SkILs) reablement service which supports adults to look after themselves independently, following a change in circumstance, illness, injury or time spent in hospital. Mr L has explained the Council told him the Reablement service was free of charge for six weeks. He therefore disputes Mrs Q being charged over a period of five weeks.
6. The Council explains the Reablement service provides short-term support which during this period is not chargeable. It says the service only becomes chargeable when long-term needs have been identified. The amount a service user needs to contribute to such charges can only be determined when all financial information has been declared.
7. In early March 2024, the Council confirmed a referral would made for Mrs Q’s care to be transferred to an alternative home based care provider. The following month the Council sent a letter detailing the outcome of Mrs Q’s financial assessment. This confirmed Mrs Q qualified for financial assistance for any non-residential social care and support costs over the weekly charge she was assessed as needing to contribute. The Council also took into account that effective from mid-April 2024, Mrs Q was awarded care funding via NHS continuing healthcare. For these reasons, as well the financial assessment being completed, the Council determined Mrs Q had had needs for longer term care which she was in the process of transferring to.
8. The Council provided Mr L an information leaflet in February 2024 which outlined care charges, the financial assessment process and that the Re-ablement service was only free whilst a service users’ reablement plan is active. As I understand from the Council’s records, Mr L confirmed he had received this information. In my view, there is clear evidence Mrs Q had longer term needs and was seeking care provision to meet these. This had the effect of the Reablement service becoming chargeable and at the amount identified in the financial assessment.
9. As I understand, Mr L does not appear to dispute that Mrs Q’s need for reablement care completed once longer term needs were identified, and I have not identified any fault with the Council’s consideration of this matter. Instead, he says he was not properly informed about the service being chargeable and in what circumstances. The evidence shows the Council provided Mr L written and verbal information about charges. In my view, there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the restriction I outline at paragraph three (above) applies.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman