Summary: We have ended our investigation about Ms M’s care charges. Part of the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to investigate now. The Council in its complaint response accepted it is at fault for discrepancies in the financial assessment for Ms M’s care and how it pursued her for the outstanding amount which caused Ms M and her daughter, Ms D, distress. The Council has apologised and agreed to reduce the debt to an amount agreed with the family. There is no worthwhile outcome I could achieve by investigating the complaint further.

The complaint

1. Ms D complained the Council has increased her mother’s (Ms M’s) care charges and historically overcharged her, resulting in a large debt. Ms D says the Council sent threatening letters and wrongly instructed debt collectors. This caused distress to Ms D and Ms M and had a financial impact on Ms M. Ms D would like the Council to apologise and accept the impact this had on the family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. We may investigate complaints from the person affected by the complaint issues, or from someone else if they have given their consent. If the person affected cannot give their consent, we may investigate a complaint from a person we decide is a suitable representative. (section 26A or 34C, Local Government Act 1974)
4. 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

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

What I have and have not investigated

5. We would not usually investigate events from more than 12 months before the complaint to us unless:
• we decide there are good reasons for the person not making the complaint sooner; and
• we are satisfied there will be sufficient information available to reach robust, fair conclusions and meaningful recommendations; and
• we consider we will be able to achieve a worthwhile outcome.
6. Ms D complained about events back to 2017. I have seen no good reason why she did not come to us sooner. I have considered what happened from April 2024, 12 months before Ms D complained to us
7. I have not investigated anything passed the date Ms D complained to us. If she is not satisfied with the Council’s actions after April 2025, she will need to raise a new complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Ms D and the Council and relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Ms D 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

Charging for social care services

10. A council has a duty to arrange care and support for those with eligible needs, and a power to meet both eligible and non-eligible needs in places other than care homes. A council can choose to charge for non-residential care following a person’s needs assessment. Where it decides to charge, the council must follow the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and have regard to the Care Act statutory guidance. (Care Act 2014, section 14 and 17)
11. Where a council has decided to charge for care, it must carry out a financial assessment to decide what a person can afford to pay. It must then give the person a written record of the completed assessment. Councils have no power to assess couples according to their joint financial resources. A council must treat each person individually. A council must not charge more than the cost it incurs to meet a person’s assessed eligible needs.
12. People receiving care and support other than in a care home need to keep a certain level of income to cover their living costs. Councils’ financial assessments can take a person’s income and capital into consideration, but not the value of their home. After charging, a person’s income must not reduce below a weekly amount known as the minimum income guarantee (MIG). This is set by national government and reviewed each year. A council can allow people to keep more than the MIG. (Care Act 2014)

What happened

13. I have summarised below the key events; this is not intended to be a detailed account.
14. Ms M has long term health conditions and receives care in her home. The Council completed financial assessments each year and wrote to Ms M to explain her contribution towards her care fees.
15. Ms D complained to the Council in November 2024. She disputed the charges her mother had to pay towards her care which she said had increased significantly. The total amount outstanding was around £6,000. She said the Council harassed her mother including sending 52 letters on one day in 2021 and threatening bailiff action.
16. The Council responded in December 2024. It upheld Ms D’s complaint about sending her 52 letters on the same day and threatening bailiff action, and apologised. It said it provided training to officers to prevent this happening again.
17. The Council explained it reviewed Ms M’s financial assessment each year and sent her an annual uplift letter for care charges. It also confirmed it sent invoices to Ms M every four weeks. The Council said it had told Ms M about the charges, and these were still due. It did not uphold this part of her complaint. The Council offered a “goodwill credit” of around £3,000 to settle the arrears on Ms M’s account. This was around half the outstanding amount. Ms D refused.
18. Ms D was not satisfied with the Council's complaint response and asked it to investigate further. She also complained to us in April 2025.
19. The Council issued a further complaint response in June 2025. It partially upheld the complaint.
20. In response to Ms D’s complaint about inconsistent and inaccurate financial assessments, the Council’s further investigation found the information within the financial assessment did not accurately reflect Ms M’s income and expenditure. The complaint response referred to a discussion with Ms D and said to resolve this issue without the need to provide bank statements and expenditure details, it offered to reduce Ms M’s contribution towards her care to around £6 per week. This reduced the outstanding amount to around £1,000. The correspondence from the Council said Ms D had agreed to this approach.
21. The Council agreed to review the processes used by the financial assessment team to ensure it addressed queries quickly and escalate them if needed. It also agreed to carry out face to face reviews with Ms M to ensure future financial assessments were accurate.
22. The Council apologised for the delay responding to queries and correspondence from Ms M and Ms D. It also apologised for the incorrect financial assessments. It said it understood this caused significant distress and inconvenience to the family.
23. In conversation with me, Ms D said she is satisfied with the Council’s offer of £1,000 and has agreed to pay this.
24. I investigated the period ending with Ms D’s complaint to us. The Council has issued further invoices to Ms M for her continued care. These are additional invoices after the date of Ms D’s complaint and do not form part of this case.

Analysis

25. Ms D complained the Council increased her mother’s care charges significantly and this created a large debt of just over £6,000. In its further investigation, the Council accepted there were discrepancies in its financial assessment and offered to decrease Ms M’s care contribution to around £6 per week. This decreased the amount Ms M owed to around £1,000. Ms D told me she agreed to the settlement. The Council also agreed to do face to face financial assessments in the future to prevent future discrepancies occurring, which Ms M and Ms D also accepted. Ms M confirmed they were satisfied with this outcome, there is nothing further I can achieve for Ms M and Ms D about this part of their complaint.
26. Ms D also complained about the Council sending 52 letters on the same day and threatening to send debt collectors to her mother’s property. These events happened in 2021 which is too long ago for me to investigate now. In any case, the Council accepted this was fault and apologised to Ms M and Ms D in its complaint response. It explained this was not routine practice and provided training to ensure this does not happen again. There is nothing more I could achieve by investigating this now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman