Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not tell him it was charging him for his care until a month after he had received the care. I have discontinued my investigation. This is because the Council offered a suitable remedy for Mr X’s financial injustice and we are unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not tell him it was charging him for his care until a month after he had received the care. This has caused him financial injustice.

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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
7. A Social Worker spoke to Mr X at the beginning of May 2024 and completed an assessment of his care needs. Mr X’s care package was for three calls a day. The Social Worker said it was in their ‘professional opinion that Mr X will require this level of support ongoing to assist with maintaining personal care needs, and activities of daily living.’
8. The records show the Social Worker discussed financial information with Mr X and referred him for a financial assessment. The Social Worker said they told Mr X the Council would charge him for his care from the beginning of May. Mr X said he has no recollection of this.
9. The Council did a financial assessment on Mr X and sent him a letter dated the middle of May. This said it had completed a light touch assessment and as Mr X had over the capital upper limit in the bank, he must contribute the maximum charge for services. The Council sent Mr X an invoice for the charges.
10. As soon as Mr X received this letter, he telephoned the Council and reduced his care package. He said he did not think he needed the full care package. Mr X said he would have reduced the care package earlier had he known he was paying for it. Mr X said this was the first time he was aware he would have to pay for all his care.
11. Mr X complained to the Council in early September. He reiterated that he did not think he should have to pay for the whole amount of his care as he did not know it was chargeable. He would have cancelled it earlier had he known he needed to pay for it. The amount disputed was £415.27.
12. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in late September. It referred to its records from the date of the care assessment in May and explained the Social Worker told Mr X the Council would charge for his care from this date.
13. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman at the end of September. When asked what he thought the Council should do ‘to put things right’, he said he wanted the Council to agree he did not have to pay the amount disputed.
14. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council offered to waive the outstanding care charges of £415.27 to resolve the complaint. This is the remedy Mr X sought.

Analysis

15. I intend to discontinue my investigation.
16. The Council offered Mr X a suitable financial remedy which is line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
17. It is therefore unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome. And I do not consider any additional worthwhile outcome is likely to be achieved.

Back to top

Decision

18. I have discontinued my investigation. This is because we are unlikely to achieve a different outcome.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman