Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his grandfather’s care charges. He says his grandfather was told he would receive six weeks of care for free to support his recovery following discharge from hospital, but he was charged. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the claimed fault has not caused any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about his grandfather’s care charges. He says his grandfather was told he would receive six weeks of care for free to support his recovery following his discharge from hospital. However, he has been charged for his care and support.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council said it provides any additional care required for a period of four weeks to facilitate an individual’s discharge from hospital.
6. The Council confirmed it completed a care assessment for Mr X’s grandfather, Mr Z, in June 2024. This identified Mr X had eligible care and support needs. Therefore, a care package was arranged for three calls a day. The care package started the day before Mr X was admitted to hospital.
7. The Council explained because of this, the care package was not considered additional care at point of discharge and so was chargeable.
8. When Mr Z was discharged from hospital, his care package was increased to four calls per day. The Council acknowledged the fourth call was considered additional care and so was provided for free for four weeks. After which, the call became chargeable.
9. An investigation is not justified as the claimed fault has not caused any significant injustice. I note that Mr X considers the communication around the charges was not clear. However, even if we were to find fault with the Council for not properly communicating that the care calls were chargeable, this hasn’t caused Mr Z any financial detriment. This is because if he had been properly advised at the time, he would still be responsible for paying for the full cost of his care and support. This is the exact same position as Mr Z is in now.
10. Further, the Council also explained Mr X was charged the full cost of his care as he had not completed the financial assessment form. The Council said Mr X’s daughter had been contacted regarding the financial assessment form but that no form was completed and returned. The Council therefore completed a financial assessment in November 2024 which confirmed he was responsible for paying for the full care charges.
11. An investigation is not proportionate as we are not likely to find fault with the Council’s actions. This is because the Council is allowed to charge the full cost of the care and support package if it is not provided the necessary information to enable it to complete a financial assessment. It is acknowledged that Mr Z had been hospitalised but there were family representatives that could have supported Mr Z with completing the financial assessment forms.
12. In any case, the Council has offered to complete a new financial assessment to review Mr Z’s charges. This is appropriate in the circumstances, and it is open to Mr Z and his representatives to provide the financial information necessary to enable the Council to complete this.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the claimed fault has not caused any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman