Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council delaying in issuing invoices for his father’s care and support and about not being told his father would be charged a contribution. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the delay in completing the financial assessment did not cause any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed in issuing invoices for his father’s care and support. He also says he was not told his father would be charged a contribution towards the cost of his care placement.

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.

(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. Mr X’s father, Mr Z was placed in a care home in June 2024. Mr X says the Council failed to tell them his father would need to contribute towards the cost of the care placement. Instead, they were led to believe the placement would be paid in full by the Council.
6. The Council said it provided information to Mr X’s father and mother that a financial assessment would be completed to determine how much Mr Z would need to contribute towards the cost of his care placement. The Council provided evidence of an email sent in May 2024 which detailed this.
7. A customer information checklist was also provided to Mr Z and his wife. This document set out the charging policy and again provided clear information that a financial assessment would be completed to work out how much Mr Z would need to pay. This checklist was signed by Mr X which implies he had read and understood the document.
8. Therefore, an investigation is not justified because we are not likely to find fault. This is because the Council provided clear information to Mr Z’s family that a financial assessment would be completed to decide how much he would need to pay towards his care and support charges.
9. The Council accepted it delayed in completing the financial assessment. This in turn led to a delay in the invoices being issued as they could not be raised until the Council had worked out what Mr Z’s client contribution was. The Council has apologised for this, which was appropriate.
10. However, I don’t consider this fault caused any significant injustice. This is because Mr Z is still in the same position he would have been in if the fault had not occurred. I.e. if the Council had not delayed in completing the financial assessment, it would have issued the invoices earlier and Mr Z would still be responsible for paying his assessed charges. This is the same position that he is currently in. Therefore, an investigation is not justified.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the delay in completing the financial assessment did not cause any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman