Summary: We have decided not to investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s poor communication and delay in resolving the funding for his mother, Mrs Y’s residential care. We asked the Council to remedy the injustice by making an apology and payment to Mr X and taking steps to improve its services, and it has agreed to do so.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to agree to fund his mother, Mrs Y’s care home placement when her capital fell below the upper threshold (£23,250). He said the Council had decided to move Mrs Y to a cheaper care home without properly considering the impact of a move on her wellbeing.
2. Mr X said the Council’s approach had caused him significant stress and worry.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs Y had been paying the full cost of her care in her care home. Mr X told the Council Mrs Y’s capital was getting low in April 2023. The Council calculated her capital would fall below the upper limit in late January 2024.
7. In November 2024, the Council sent Mr X forms to complete to enable it to carry out a financial assessment. It also reviewed Mrs Y’s care and support. Its record said it advised Mr X the Council may move her to an alternative care home. Mr X said he did not want Mrs Y to be moved because she was settled in the care home and her needs were being met. There is no indication the Council considered the impact of a move on Mrs Y’s wellbeing at that point.
8. Council records indicate it proposed a budget for Mrs Y’s care costs that was lower than the cost of her current care home in December 2024. However, the Council did not start looking for an alternative care home until March 2024. It suggested two alternative care homes to Mr X, which he refused.
9. In late May 2024, Mrs Y’s GP sent two letters: the first said there was no physical reason why Mrs Y could not move; the second said a move would be severely detrimental, given her dementia diagnosis. Council records indicate its view was that Mrs Y was medically able to move, but there is no indication that it considered the impact of a move on her wellbeing in light of the GP’s letter.
10. In June 2024, Mrs Y was admitted to hospital so the move did not happen. For a period after this her care fees were covered by NHS Continuing healthcare funding. This ended in October 2024, following which the Council again sought a cheaper care home. In December 2024, Mrs Y’s current care home agreed to accept a lower rate to assist Mrs Y and her family, which meant she did not need to move.
11. Because the Council had not made a definite decision about the placement for Mrs Y, it did not agree the funding, which meant Mrs Y had to continue paying for her own care. Despite promising to refund care fees from the point her capital fell below the upper capital limit, the Council did not agree the amount to be repaid until late October 2024.
12. If we investigated this complaint, it is likely we would find the Council was at fault for not properly assessing the impact of a move on Mrs Y’s wellbeing and for not being sufficiently proactive in deciding the funding position and communicating this to Mr X. Mrs Y did not suffer a significant injustice as she remained in the care home where her needs were met. But Mr X suffered avoidable stress and worry and was put to avoidable time and trouble pursuing the Council to resolve the matter.
13. We therefore recommended the Council take the following action and it has agreed to:
• make a meaningful apology to Mr X in line with our Guidance on effective apologies;
• pay him £500 to remedy the injustice caused;
• refund the overpaid care fees, if it has not already done so; and
• remind relevant staff of the need to assess the impact of any proposed care home move on the resident’s wellbeing before deciding whether it is appropriate for them to move to a cheaper care home, and to make decisions about the appropriate placement and funding implications without delay.
14. The Council will carry out these actions within one month and will provide us with evidence it has done so.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X and improving its service for others.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman