Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the Council completing Mrs Y’s financial assessment. The Council has apologised for frustration the delay caused the family. We could not say delays caused a quantifiable financial injustice so we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks. There is insufficient evidence of fault in other elements of the complaint to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council delayed completing his mother’s (Mrs Y’s) financial assessment and misinformed him. He said this caused distress for the family and led to significant arrears. He wanted the Council to waive the charges accrued before the financial assessment was complete.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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. Where a local authority arranges care and support to meet a person’s needs it may charge the adult, aside from in certain circumstances which are specified in the guidance. Councils complete financial assessments to determine a person’s contribution, taking into account their capital and income in line with the statutory guidance. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance, sections 8.2, 8.11-8.14)
7. Mrs Y moved into a residential home in late 2023. The Council received a completed financial assessment form from her family in March 2024. The Council did not complete Mrs Y’s financial assessment until early 2025. It accepts it delayed, and if we investigated this complaint we would find it at fault.
8. The Council says it informed Mrs Y’s family in writing in early 2024 that care would be chargeable and provided us evidence of this, although Mr X disputes this and says a signature on the financial assessment form is not his. Mr X says an officer told him over the telephone instead that costs would not occur until the financial assessment had been completed.
9. We could not say what exactly was discussed verbally. Telephone recordings are not available so there is no substantive evidence to support Mr X’s claim, and we were not party to the conversation. There is insufficient evidence of fault in respect of an officer misinforming the family verbally or the Council providing insufficient information about charging for care. In any event, the Council’s website also provides clear information about charges for care, including a calculator where people can find out approximately what their charges will be.
10. When we consider how any fault by an organisation has impacted someone, we consider what would have happened but for the fault. But for the delays in the Council completing Mrs Y’s financial assessment, Mrs Y would still have had to pay for her care. She has not experienced a quantifiable financial injustice. It does not therefore follow that any recommendation we could make if we investigated this complaint would involve a waiver of her charges, and so we could not achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.
11. If we investigated the matter, we would likely decide the injustice caused by the Council’s delay was frustration for Mrs Y’s family. We will not normally investigate a complaint unless there is good reason to believe that the complainant has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the service provider.
12. The Council apologised for the delay when responding to Mr X’s complaint. This is sufficient in this case to recognise the frustration the delay caused. There is not sufficient justification for us to consider the matter further.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because I am satisfied the action the Council has taken is sufficient to remedy the injustice caused by delays. There is insufficient evidence of fault in other elements of the complaint to warrant investigation

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman