Summary: We have upheld Ms X’s complaint about a lack of information about the cost of adult social care, which meant she could not make an informed choice about accepting a care package. The Council has agreed to take appropriate steps to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council did not inform her about the cost of care when this was arranged after a hospital stay, which meant she could not make an informed choice about whether to agree to the care package. She also complained about a delay in assessing how much she had to pay, which meant she was faced with a large bill, as charges were backdated to the start of the care package.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. 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

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

What happened

5. The Council arranged a care package for Ms X after a hospital stay in July 2024. Its records show it advised her that a financial assessment would be needed to assess how much she would need to contribute towards the cost of her care and that she might have to pay the full cost. It said a financial assessment could take a few weeks and she would need to pay the assessed contributions from the date the care started.
6. The Council did not send finance forms to Ms X until January 2025. The NHS trust, who assessed what care Ms X needed, accept this was because it failed to complete the relevant form to request the financial assessment.
7. A relative told the Council Ms X did not want to share financial information with it. Therefore, the Council wrote to confirm Ms X would need to pay the full cost of her care and started invoicing her on that basis.
8. There was then some confusion about whether Ms X had agreed to pay the full cost or whether she wanted a financial assessment. There was also some confusion about who would help her complete the finance form and provide the relevant information to the Council. This led to finance forms being sent several times, to different relatives, but not returned and to requests for assessments being cancelled by relatives.
9. The Council received the financial information in mid-May and completed the financial assessment about a week later. It assessed Ms X as having to pay the full cost of her care because her capital was over the relevant limit.
10. After receiving further financial information in June, it carried out a fresh assessment, which calculated that Ms X’s capital fell below the relevant limit in February 2025 and did not need to make a contribution from that date, based on her capital and income at the point of the assessment.
11. The Council confirmed it had issued revised invoices, following the reassessment.

My assessment

12. If we investigated further, it is likely we would find the Council at fault for a delay in sending finance forms and providing information about the cost of Ms X’s care. This meant Ms X was not able to make an informed choice about the level of care she wanted, and significant costs had accrued due to the delay in carrying out the financial assessment, so she was then faced with a large bill. There was also a delay in responding to the complaint, which caused frustration.
13. We therefore asked the Council, and it has agreed, to take the following action within one month of the date of this decision:
• apologise to Ms X in line with our guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice; and
• pay Ms X £400 as a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused. For the avoidance of doubt, this payment cannot be offset against any outstanding care charges.
14. There was no complaint about the level of care provided and the Council was entitled to charge for the care delivered.
15. After the initial financial assessment, the family gave the Council conflicting information about whether Ms X agreed to pay the full cost of her care or wanted a fresh financial assessment. There was no delay in carrying out a financial assessment after the family provided financial information in May 2025.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We have upheld Ms X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to take appropriate action to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman