Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges for adult social care. There is not enough evidence of fault or significant injustice to justify our involvement. It is also unlikely we would add to what the Council said or reach a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms D says the Council is wrongly charging her relative, Mr E, for adult social care. Mr E has a debt for his care which is causing Ms D and Mr E stress. Mr E also cancelled care support which he is assessed as needing.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

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. The Council’s duty under the Care Act 2014 is to assess the care and support needs of adults in its area who it knows may need support. If the Council assesses the person has eligible needs, then it must meet those needs. The Council must complete a financial assessment to decide if the person must pay any or all the care costs. The Council must review the care support and financial assessment at least each year.
7. Mr E was receiving care support at home arranged by the Council. The Council assessed how much Mr E must pay toward that care. The amount changed over time due to updates of the financial assessment based on Mr E’s changes in circumstances. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s financial assessment of what Mr E must pay toward his care.
8. Mr E cancelled the care support, and Ms D says the Council has charged for care he did not receive. The Council has explained it has not charged Mr E beyond the date the care stopped.
9. Ms D says Mr E paid for the care workers travelling time, which is unfair as that was caused by the Council arranging an agency from out of borough. The Council explains the cost of the care without the cost of travelling is more than the contribution Mr E pays. Therefore, the full cost of the travelling time is paid for by the Council and has no impact on Mr E.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms D’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault or of a significant injustice to justify an investigation. It is unlikely we would add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman