Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council has charged her late father for his care placement even though she was told the placement would be fully funded. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, any fault has not caused significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has charged her late father for his care placement even though she was told the placement would be fully funded.

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 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X’s father, Mr Z, received care and support in a nursing home from August 2023 to February 2024. Mrs X said she asked for a continuing healthcare (CHC) assessment be completed. However, she said the nursing home told her one was not needed as Mr Z was fully funded by the Council.
6. The Council said before it arranged the placement, it told Mrs X that a financial assessment would be completed for Mr Z to determine his ability to contribute towards his care placement. The Council also gave Mrs X documents which contained information about the financial assessment process and that this was used to determine how much a service user could afford to pay towards their care and support charges.
7. I have reviewed these documents and am satisfied they contained clear information that Mr Z would need to contribute towards the cost of his care and that the Council would complete a financial assessment to calculate the contribution.
8. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. This is because the Council did provide appropriate information to Mrs X to make her aware that her father would be assessed to determine how much he would need to contribute towards the cost of his care. There is also no evidence the Council told her that her father would not need to pay anything towards the care placement.
9. The Council accepted there was a delay in it completing the financial assessment. It confirmed the assessment was not completed until March 2024. While we are likely to find this amounted to fault, I am satisfied the fault did not cause any significant injustice. This is because if the fault had not occurred, the case would be that Mr Z would still need to pay his assessed contribution. Therefore, Mr Z is still in the same position he would have been if the fault had not occurred.
10. Regarding the CHC assessment, the Council explained it had initially been told by the Integrated Care Board (ICB) that an assessment had been completed. However, it was then told this information was incorrect and that no assessment had been completed before Mr Z died.
11. Any concerns about the CHC assessment process, as well as any request for a retrospective CHC assessment and backdated funding, is for the ICB to consider and respond to. It is open to Mrs X to raise her complaints with the ICB.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, any fault has not caused significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman