Summary: We will not continue our investigation. This is because the Council has taken action to resolve the main issue. Miss X has some concerns about the complaints process itself but we are unlikely to achieve a worthwhile outcome by investigating this part of the complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains on behalf of her late father, Mr B, that the Council failed to apply a 12-week disregard to his charges for residential care. It also failed to communicate with her properly and took too long to deal with her correspondence about this.
2. Miss X says that the Council’s failings meant that Mr B’s family had to raise money each month to pay the care home charges. She also says the Council caused her and Mr B distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. Mr B owned his own home. The Council assessed Mr B and decided that he should live in a care home. Mr B moved to a residential care home near family support and in a different area to the Council. Mr B became a permanent resident of the care home from the end of August 2024. Mr B’s family understood that he would need to sell his home to pay the care fees, but that the value of his home would be disregarded for 12 weeks to allow him to do this.
8. Miss X sent the financial assessment information to the Council in mid-August. Miss X contacted the Council several times to ask about progress of the assessment and whether her father qualified for the 12-week disregard of his home. The Council eventually contacted Miss X in mid-November. It told her that the council for the area Mr B was now living in would deal with his financial assessment.
9. In the meantime, Mr B was being charged for his care, and so his family had to lend him money to pay the fees.
10. Towards the end of November, Miss X complained to the Council. She said the law was clear that as the Council had assessed Mr B, it was responsible for decisions about his funding including the 12-week property disregard, and not the council for the area he had moved to.
11. The Council responded to Miss X on 2 May 2025. It apologised for taking so long to respond to her complaint. By this time, Mr B had sadly died.
12. The Council apologised for its poor communication and that it had taken too long to complete its assessment. The Council confirmed that it was responsible for Mr B’s funding and it should not have referred her to the local council. It said it would train staff on the 12-week disregard rules, and remind staff to complete assessments in good time. The Council said that it now had a deferred payment agreement that meant that the care home fees would be paid from the sale of the property. The Council offered Miss X £150 in recognition of its poor complaint handling.
13. The Council has sent me emails that suggest there was some delay in it making payment to the care home.
14. On 1 August 2025, the Council wrote to Miss X confirming that Mr B was entitled to have his property value disregarded for the first 12 weeks. The Council’s letter says that it will pay the first 12 weeks’ of fees to the care home, and Mr B will need to pay a contribution. This is despite that the first 12 weeks elapsed some time prior to the letter and Mr B was no longer a resident.
15. It later transpired that the Council had sent over £40,000 in fees to the care home. However, Mr B and his family had paid the fees despite that the property was not sold at that time, and the Council had mishandled the issue with the disregard, and so money was now due to Mr B’s estate from the care home.
16. In October, the Council sent Miss X a demand for payment of the fees it had paid to the care home. Miss X emailed the Council. She explained that she had not been paid by the care home yet, and the whole situation was distressing and the process confusing.
17. In November 2025, the Council wrote again to Miss X. It said it was sincerely sorry for the distress and inconvenience this matter had caused her. It acknowledged the delays in communication and the confusion around the payment process, particularly the 12-week property disregard. The Council acknowledged it was at fault, and that the process had placed an undue burden on Miss X and the care home to resolve the outstanding payments. It said that it was reviewing its internal procedures to make sure that similar situations are handled more sensitively and efficiently in the future.
18. That month the Council reimbursed Miss X almost £7,000. It had also paid her £150 in recognition of the time and trouble it had put her to.
19. Miss X has raised concerns that although the Council had now reimbursed the amount Mr B and his family had paid during his first 12 weeks of staying at the care home, its complaints process had been difficult to follow. She said the Council had taken too long to deal with her complaint, had not always responded to her contact and had passed her to different officers in the Council.

My analysis and decision

20. The Council has reimbursed Miss X and made a payment to her in recognition of the time and trouble it had put her to having to complain. This means that the Council has resolved the main issue. Although Miss X has concerns about the complaints process, further investigation is unlikely to achieve more or a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman