Kent County Council (24 019 822)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council pursing him for his late father’s care debt. This is because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes as the Council has offered a suitable remedy.
The complaint
- Mr X complains the Council is pursing him for his late father’s care debt. He says his father had no money left to pay the debt.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. 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)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- Mr X’s father, Mr Z, received care and support from the Council. Mr X said the Council is pursing him for Mr Z’s care debt but says his father had no money left to pay the debt.
- In response to our enquiries, the Council confirmed it would carry out a further review of Mr X’s complaint. As part of the review, the Council accepted:
- It should have offered Mr Z a financial assessment in March 2023 following concerns being raised about his ability to afford care. This would have enabled Mr Z and his wife to make an informed decision on whether they could afford care. As part of this financial assessment, the Council would have reviewed to see if any of Mr Z’s expenditure could be offset as a disability related expense (DRE).
- Mr Z’s wife was unaware that a light touch financial assessment had been completed, and she did not receive the outcome letter sent in May 2023.
- That despite Mr Z’s wife contacting in June 2023 to query Mr Z’s charges, and again raises affordability concerns due to Mr Z’s expenses, it failed to complete a DRE assessment.
- The Council acknowledged that completing a retrospective DRE assessment now is likely to cause Mr X and his mother anxiety and distress. Therefore, in recognition of the distress caused by the faults accepted, the Council offered to waive the outstanding debt.
- An investigation is not proportionate because it would not lead to any further findings or outcomes. The Council has acknowledged its faults in failing to complete a financial or DRE assessment, and has offered a remedy that exceeds what we could have achieved from Mr X.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any further findings or outcomes as the Council has offered a suitable remedy.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman