Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council’s invoices for her mother’s care charges are wrong. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any further outcomes.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council’s invoices for her mother’s care charges are wrong. She wants the Council to waive the charge charges that remain outstanding.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

3. 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 the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X’s mother, Mrs Z, has care and support needs. She received a residential care package and respite care in a care home.
7. Mrs X complains about some invoices the Council raised relating to her mother’s care and support charges.
8. In its complaint response, the Council accepted some of the invoices issued were a little unclear. The Council explained that it had identified that Mrs Z’s care package schedule was wrong on its system and corrected it. This led to the system automatically generating an invoice and credit note to balance Mrs Z’s account.
9. The Council confirmed the balance due was just over £627 and that this charge covered the period 27 March 2023 to 2 June 2024. Mrs Z’s assessed contribution was just over £125 a week. Therefore, I am satisfied the charges are correct.
10. For the second invoice, Mrs X said the invoice was incorrect as it covered the period Mrs Z was in respite care in a care home. The Council said in its complaint responses that the invoice covered charges for the period 29 July to 7 August 2024. This meant the charge should have been just over £161. However, the invoice was for just over £251.
11. I asked the Council to explain why there was a discrepancy of just under £90. The Council told me that it had made a mistake in its complaint correspondence regarding the dates the invoice covered. The Council confirmed the invoice was correct and that it covered charges for non-residential care between:
• 29 July to 4 August 2024; and
• 26 August to 1 September 2024.
12. The Council apologised for the inconsistent communication and accepted this may have caused Mrs X confusion about what was being charged for. To recognise this, the Council has offered a symbolic financial payment of £50. I am satisfied this offer is in line with our guidance on remedies. Therefore, an investigation is not proportionate as it would not lead to any further outcomes.
13. Mrs X complained they were not told about having to pay for respite care. Mrs X said she was told her mother was entitled to 8 weeks a year and that she therefore assumed the care was free. If Mrs X was unclear about whether respite care was chargeable, it was reasonable for her to have asked the Council to clarify. This is especially given Mrs X was aware that her mother had to pay a contribution towards her home care package.
14. There is no additional evidence to suggest the Council provided any information to Mrs X to suggest respite care would be different. The Council sent Mrs X a letter in October 2024 confirming Mrs Z’s assessed charges for respite care.
15. It is acknowledged the letter was sent after Mrs Z’s respite care had ended. However, I am satisfied this has not caused any injustice. This is because if the letter had been sent earlier, Mrs Z would be responsible for paying her assessed charge. This is the same position as she is currently in. Therefore, an investigation is not justified.
16. Mrs X also complained about care concerns regarding both the residential care provider and the care home. For the residential care provider, Mrs X said they had left her mother’s key safe open with the code visible. The Council accepted this had happened. The Council has apologised for this and offered a symbolic payment of just over £146. This offer was in line with our guidance on remedies. Therefore, an investigation is not proportionate as it would not lead to any further outcomes.
17. Mrs X raised safeguarding concerns in relation to the care provided by the care home and she says her mother’s health deteriorated while in the care home. The Council noted that Mrs Z was not well when she moved into the care home and that the social worker visited and observed care staff being attentive to Mrs Z’s needs.
18. Mrs X noted her mother left the care home with bed sores. However, the Council said the social worker was not told of this by Mrs Z during her visit nor was there any record to suggest district nurses had attended for bed sores. The Council confirmed there was insufficient evidence to support Mrs X’s view that her mother’s health deteriorated as direct result of her respite care.
19. An investigation is not justified as it would not lead to any further findings or outcomes. This is because an investigation is not likely to uncover any further evidence to allow any findings to be made that Mrs Z’s deterioration in health was a direct result of the care home, as opposed to other factors.

Back to top

Agreed action

20. The Council will make the payment of £50 within four weeks of the final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Mrs Z’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, an investigation would not lead to any further outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman