Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in carrying out a financial assessment for Mr Y and its actions in pursuing the debt after Mr Y had died. The Council has already provided apologies for the injustice caused by fault and explained service improvements it will make, and we could not achieve a more meaningful outcome by investigating the matter further.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council:
• delayed Mr Y’s financial assessment by four months;
• decided Mr Y should pay for his care despite previous assurances it would fund his care;
• continued to pursue payment and threaten court action after Mr Y had died; and
• claimed it was not aware of Mr Y’s death despite including ‘deceased’ in the letter headers.
2. Mr X said the family lost the opportunity to look at alternative nursing placements, and said the matter had caused significant distress. He wanted explanations and a waiver of Mr Y’s fees from May to September 2024.

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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained to the Council about how it had handled his father, Mr Y’s, financial assessment and subsequent invoices.
8. The Council acknowledged in its complaint response that it had delayed carrying out a financial assessment. It also acknowledged an email its social worker had sent to Mr X in May 2024 was not clear enough. This email said funding ‘had been approved’ for Mr Y to remain in his nursing home. Mr X said based on this email, the family believed Mr Y’s care was being fully funded by the Council.
9. When we investigate complaints, we must consider what injustice has been caused by any fault. In order to determine this, we consider what would have happened but for fault. In this case, had the email been clearer and had there been no delay, Mr Y would still have been invoiced for the full cost of his care. We could not say that Mr Y would have moved to an alternative placement had the Council assessed his finances sooner, or that any alternative placement would have been cheaper. Despite the way the email had been worded, the family had also been provided information about charging for care and had no other reason to believe Mr Y would not have to pay for his care given the value of his capital.
10. The injustice we would likely find if we investigated this matter would therefore not be a quantifiable financial injustice. It is likely we would instead decide Mr Y’s family had been caused confusion and uncertainty. It does not therefore follow that a waiver of Mr Y’s charges for care would be a suitable remedy for the injustice caused. The Council has apologised and explained it would consider template wording for such emails to avoid ambiguity in future. We could not achieve anything more meaningful if we investigated the matter further.
11. The Council also acknowledged via its complaint response that it had missed opportunities to put Mr Y’s account on hold for a period after his death and recognised the family’s distress. It also acknowledged it had communicated the wrong date in regard to when it had become aware of Mr Y’s death. It apologised for both these faults and explained it would update its system to enable it to place a hold on automatic letters issued where people have died.
12. I am satisfied the action the Council has taken, and intends to take, is sufficient to remedy the injustice caused in this case by the identified faults. We could not achieve a more meaningful outcome if we investigated the matter further. It is not proportionate for us to investigate this complaint as doing so would not achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has already provided apologies for the injustice caused by fault and explained service improvements it will make, and we could not achieve a more meaningful outcome by investigating the matter further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman