Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about adult social care charges for his late wife, Mrs X. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council provided and charged his late wife for domiciliary care against their wishes. He says the Council delayed providing a copy of Mrs X’s care plan and did not pursue Continuing Healthcare (CHC) funding from the NHS. He wants the Council to waive the outstanding care charges to his late wife’s estate.

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. (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 Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mrs X was in a residential respite placement following a fall. In June 2023, the Council met with Mr and Mrs X to discuss the care she would need when discharged from the residential placement. These discussions involved the charges Mrs X was likely to incur for her care at home. The Council subsequently sent Mr and Mrs X a factsheet about non-residential care charges. Mr X signed and returned a document to the Council confirming he understood the financial implications of receiving non-residential care.
5. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint about the charges Mrs X had incurred for her care. It provided details of when the Social Worker had discussed the financial implications of receiving care and that Mr and Mrs X had agreed to proceed by accepting the arrangements offered. Council case records noted the Social Worker had advised Mr and Mrs X that two carers were needed at an hourly rate of £20.00, which was likely to amount to charges of approximately £800 per week. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaints that he and his wife were forced to accept the care arranged or the associated charges. The Council apologised for the delay in providing Mr X with a copy of his wife’s care plan and completion of the financial assessment.
6. Mr X has not denied he received and signed the document about the financial implications of non-residential care. He has also not said his wife did not receive the care the Council arranged for the period covered by the charges. We are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council. This is because the law is clear the Council can charge an individual for their care and support. If the claimed fault had not occurred, i.e. if the Council had completed the financial assessment sooner to inform Mr X of the exact care charges Mrs X would incur, then Mrs X would still have needed to pay for the care she received.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman