Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to complete a financial assessment and confirm the care contribution before it started his mother’s care and support package. He also complained the Council has refused to cancel the care package despite repeated requests from him and his mother. We find the Council was at fault for its delay in completing the financial assessment. This caused avoidable distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and his mother and implement a service improvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to complete a financial assessment and confirm the care contribution before it started his mother’s (Mrs Y) care and support package. He also complains the Council has refused to cancel the care package despite repeated requests from him and Mrs Y.
2. Mr X says the Council’s failures have caused distress and upset. He says he and Mrs Y have lost the opportunity to seek alternative care and take a different approach.

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 must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
5. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation and guidance

9. A council has a duty to arrange care and support for those with eligible needs, and a power to meet both eligible and non-eligible needs in places other than care homes. A council can choose to charge for non-residential care following a person’s needs assessment. Where a council has decided to charge for care, it must carry out a financial assessment to decide what a person can afford to pay. It must then give the person a written record of the completed assessment. (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and have regard to the Care Act statutory guidance. (Care Act 2014, section 14 and 17)
10. Section 19 of the Care Act 2014 says a local authority may meet an adult's needs for care and support which appear to be urgent without having yet carried out a needs assessment or a financial assessment.

What happened

11. This chronology includes an overview of key events in this case and does not detail everything that happened.
12. Mrs Y has dementia. The Council completed an assessment of Mrs Y’s needs in January 2024. Mr X attended the assessment. The Council noted Mrs Y had the capacity to make decisions about her care and support needs. It decided Mrs Y had eligible care and support needs, and that a care package consisting of two 30-minute calls per day would meet those needs.
13. The Council had a telephone call with Mr X the following week to discuss Mrs Y’s finances. Mr X said Mrs Y no longer owned a property and she did not have much money. The Council emailed Mr X after the call and asked for Mrs Y’s financial information and the details of the property she previously owned. Mr X provided the information in early February.
14. The Council received a referral with concerns about Mrs Y’s welfare in early March. It noted on its file its search for an agency for Mrs Y was now urgent because of these concerns.
15. A care agency started providing care to Mrs Y on 11 March.
16. The Council completed its financial assessment for Mrs Y on 9 April. It decided she had to contribute £168.99 per week towards her care costs.
17. Mr X received an invoice from the Council on 11 April with Mrs Y’s care costs. He emailed the Council and said it had failed to tell him the outcome of Mrs Y’s financial assessment before the care started. He also asked it to suspend the care until it had shared the financial assessment and both him and Mrs Y had agreed the costs. The Council responded and provided a copy of the financial assessment. It said it had previously sent this information to his home address. Mr X responded and asked it to stop Mrs Y’s care.
18. Mr X contacted the Council and said he wanted to raise a formal complaint. He repeated his request to stop Mrs Y’s care.
19. The Council sent Mr X another invoice for Mrs Y’s care costs in May. Mr X responded and said Mrs Y could not contribute towards her care costs. He said it had failed to respond to his previous correspondence.
20. The Council called Mrs Y in mid-May. The notes of the call state the officer discussed the contribution and financial assessment outcome with Mrs Y. The notes also state Mrs Y said she was happy with the care.
21. Mrs Y emailed the Council a few hours after the call. She said she was not aware she had to make a financial contribution until April. She said she wanted the care to stop until it had reassessed her contribution. The Council responded to Mrs Y. It said it was confused by her email because she said she was happy with the care package in the call, and she understood why it was necessary. It said there was an immediate risk to her health if she did not have the care package.
22. Mr X emailed the Council and said he had spoken to Mrs Y. He said Mrs Y remembered the Council asking if she was happy with the care. However, it was her understanding the care package was free and there was no financial contribution. He asked the Council to contact Mrs Y again and ask her if she was happy with the financial contribution.
23. The Council reviewed Mrs Y’s case in late May. The team manager asked the officer dealing with the matter to advise of any risks associated with Mrs Y not receiving care. He also asked whether Mrs Y had the mental capacity to make the decision to cancel her care. He said if Mrs Y lacked capacity, then the Council would need to hold a best interest meeting to decide whether the care should continue. A best interest meeting supports decision making on behalf of individuals who lack the capacity to make the decision themselves. The officer responded and said Mr X was aware the Council had to source the care package for Mrs Y urgently as she was found wandering the streets and hallucinating in March. The officer did not answer the question about Mrs Y’s capacity.
24. Mr X emailed the Council to chase up a response to his complaint. He also reminded it that he and Mrs Y had asked for the care to stop. The officer responded and said they had sent his email to management and the finance team to action.
25. The Council responded to the complaint in mid-October. It said it had a call with Mrs Y in mid-May. Mrs Y said she was happy with the care. The officer also discussed Mrs Y’s contribution. It then received an email from Mrs Y on the same day raising concerns about the costs. This was in direct contradiction with the telephone call it had with Mrs Y. It decided to continue with the care as it had insufficient evidence the email was from Mrs Y and reflected her wishes. It accepted it did not explain the financial charges in detail before 17 May. Therefore, it decided to waive the charges before 17 May.
26. Mr X sent the Council a voice recording of him and Mrs Y discussing the complaint response. In this recording, Mrs Y said she was happy for the care to stop.
27. The Council responded in late November. It re-iterated that Mrs Y did not say in the telephone conversation it had with her that she wanted the care to stop.

Back to top

Analysis

Financial assessment

28. The Council aims to complete straightforward financial assessments within 20 working days. It has confirmed Mrs Y’s case was straightforward. Mr X provided the Council with the last piece of information on 11 February 2024. The Council should have therefore completed the financial assessment by 8 March 2024. It did not do so until over four weeks later. This delay is fault.
29. Mr X says the Council should not have started Mrs Y’s care package until it confirmed her care contributions. However, the Care Act 2014 allows councils to meet urgent needs without carrying out a financial assessment. Mrs Y’s needs were becoming more urgent and so the Council had to act quickly to meet those needs.
30. The Council said in response to my enquiries it discussed care contributions with Mr X and Mrs Y when it completed the assessment in January. I have reviewed a copy of the assessment. It says client contribution and care charges were discussed. However, there is no specific detail on what the officer discussed with Mr X and Mrs Y. Mr X says he was aware of the financial assessment process, and that councils can charge for care, but the Council did not explain Mrs Y would be required to pay a contribution until April. I am satisfied Mr X and Mrs Y were aware of the general principles of charging in January 2024, but not that Mrs Y would be liable for a client contribution until April 2024. The Council would not have known in January 2024, before the financial assessment was completed, what (if any) Mrs Y’s financial contribution would be.

Failure to cancel care

31. The Council was at fault for its delay in contacting Mrs Y to explore her wishes. It received several emails from Mr X throughout April about cancelling the care, but it did not contact Mrs Y until mid-May.
32. The Council says Mrs Y said in the call in mid-May she was happy with the care. It also says it discussed the financial contribution with her. It was not happy Mrs Y’s email after the call with a request to cancel the care represented her wishes. Therefore, it decided to proceed with the care package.
33. I have reviewed the note of the Council’s call with Mrs Y in mid-May. The notes state Mrs Y was happy with the care. While it says the officer discussed the financial contribution, it is not clear exactly what was discussed. I recognise Mrs Y sent an email later that day with conflicting information and asked for the care to stop. Given this conflicting information, the Council should have visited Mrs Y. It should have explored with her whether she understood the implications of cancelling her care, whether it was her wish to do so, and whether she had the mental capacity to make this decision. It was not sufficient for the Council to rely on one phone call. The team manager also asked the officer about Mrs Y’s mental capacity, but this was not explored further. This is fault.
34. The Council also received a voice recording in October. Mrs Y said she was happy for the care to stop, and this was still her position. The Council again failed to contact Mrs Y directly and explore this with her further.

Injustice and remedy

35. The Council’s delay in completing the financial assessment caused Mr X and Mrs Y distress. The Council accepted it did not provide full financial information until mid-May. It has waived the charges until then. I welcome this. However, the Council did not apologise to Mr X and Mrs Y for the injustice caused. It should now do so. I have also recommended a service improvement to prevent a recurrent of the fault.
36. The Council, in response to my enquiries, said it completed a recent reassessment of Mrs Y’s needs (in March 2025) and there was no reason to doubt her mental capacity. The Council also decided in the assessment in January 2024 Mrs Y had mental capacity to make decisions about her care and support needs. Therefore, while the Council was at fault for not exploring Mrs Y’s capacity in late May 2024, it is more likely than not it would have decided she had mental capacity, and the outcome would not have been any different.
37. I have considered whether the Council’s delay in contacting Mrs Y about cancelling the care, and its failure to contact her again after it received conflicting information, has caused her a significant injustice. On balance, I have decided it has not.
38. Mrs Y was aware of the financial contribution when the Council had a call with her in mid-May. She did not ask for the care to stop in the call. While she then sent one email asking for it stop, she did not send any further correspondence to the Council after this. The only contact the Council received was a voice recording that Mr X took five months later in response to the complaint. Mrs Y continued to accept care, even though she knew the financial contribution. She did not refuse the carers entry or tell them she did not want the care to continue. It is likely she would have done so if she wanted the care to stop. I also note, in the recent reassessment of Mrs Y’s care and support needs, she said she was happy with the care and did not ask for it to stop. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, if the Council had not been at fault, Mrs Y would have decided to continue with the care.

Back to top

Action

39. By 7 November 2025 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mr X and Mrs Y for the injustice caused by fault in this statement.

40. By 5 December 2025 the Council has agreed to:

• Review the timeliness of financial assessments to ensure, where possible, it completes a straightforward assessment within its service level agreement timescale of 20 working days.

41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

42. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mr X and Mrs Y an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman