Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council charging for social care provided. A further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the charges from the Council for the social care provided. He says the Council failed to tell him that after four weeks he would have to contribute to his care costs.

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:

• 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 cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. While the issue around the care costs occurred in December 2023 and is therefore over 12 months ago, I have decided to exercise discretion on this case. The Council did not clearly signpost Mr X to use this service which could have delayed the complaint from being made and it is only just over 12 months old.
7. Mr X says the Council failed to tell him that he would have to pay for the social care provided and, when he found out, there was a delay in cancelling the care services.
8. A council can choose to charge for 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.
9. The Council says it assessed Mr X while he was in hospital and explained his care package following discharge would be funded for up to 28 days, or until the point his care was reviewed, whichever was sooner. It says it also gave him a letter to this effect. Mr X does not dispute this. I am therefore satisfied on balance the Council told Mr X how and when charges would apply.
10. The Council says it met with Mr X to review his care on 7 December and charges applied from 9 December. This was in line with the information it provided to Mr X previously.
11. The Council then completed a financial assessment to decide how much Mr X would contribute towards his care. It completed this on 21 December and sent Mr X the outcome. Mr X contacted the Council on 28 December to cancel his care however it continued until 31 December.
12. The Council accepts it failed to tell Mr X correctly about the process to cancel his care. In consideration of this, the Council agreed to waive the charges applied from 25 December. It also agreed to waive half of the fees due for the rest of the chargeable period.
13. Mr X does not say the Council told him the care would be provided for free, just that the Council was unclear in its communication over cost. It is accepted he received care until it was cancelled.
14. Although I note that Mr X is unhappy with the response from the Council, I consider its actions in waiving most of the charges to be a suitable remedy for any fault. An investigation would not lead to any further findings or recommendations and so is not justified.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as a further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman