Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to tell her and her husband that he would have to contribute towards the cost of his care. There is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to inform her and her husband Mr X, that he would have to contribute towards the costs of care he received at home.
2. She says this has caused her and Mr X have distress. She also says if she had known Mr X would have to contribute to his care, she would have left him in hospital, instead of freeing up an NHS bed.
3. She wants the Council to waive the first three months’ contributions.
4. Mrs X also complains about the carers allowance which she says is inadequate to meet today’s costs of living. She wants someone to acknowledge the impact this is having on carers.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. At the beginning of April 2024, Mr X was discharged home from hospital following an accident and needed a care package to support him. Mrs X agreed to provide this but said she would be unable to do so for the first three months because she was recovering from an operation. Therefore, the Council arranged for a Care Provider to provide a package of care for Mr X during this period.
9. Two weeks after his discharge, a Council social worker visited Mr & Mrs X. The social worker says she informed the couple that they might have to contribute towards Mr X’s care depending on his income. Mrs X says the social worker provided them with no information.
10. The social worker brought a financial assessment form with her (FA1) which Mrs X signed but did not complete.
11. Later, another social worker called from the Council. Following this call, Mrs X says she completed a form which she had been given in January 2024 (FA2) and sent it to the Council. This form was dated 4 June 2024. Mrs X included details of Mr X’s finances and expenditure on the form.
12. Shortly afterwards, the Council sent Mrs X a letter detailing how much Mr X should contribute towards the costs of his care. It also explained Mr X owed around £14,000 of contributions for care he had already received. The Council said Mr X could repay this in instalments.
13. Mrs X complained to the Council and said she had assumed Mr X’s care would be free because his break had been because of third part negligence, she was recovering from an operation and by leaving hospital, Mr X was freeing up a hospital bed.
14. The Council said that the social worker had not followed the procedures she should have done as form FA1 was not fully completed. It outlined the steps it would take to prevent a similar reoccurrence. However, the Council concluded Mr & Mrs X had been provided with sufficient information to make them aware Mr X would likely have to contribute to his care.
15. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. Mr & Mrs X had been in receipt of form FA2 since January of that year. This explained about possible financial contributions towards care. The Council could not calculate the exact amount of the contributions until it had received details of Mr X’s income. Although it did not do so until June, the delay is not so significant it caused Mr X an injustice.
16. During this time, Mr X received the care. Therefore, it is reasonable for him to pay for it.
17. Mrs X says she would have considered leaving Mr X in hospital if she had known he would have to contribute towards his care. However, this is speculative. In addition, Mr X has most likely benefited from recuperating in his own home as opposed to in hospital so it is unlikely he has experienced any significant injustice.
18. Mrs X complains about the carers allowance which she says is too low. The Council has no involvement in setting the amount carers receive. Therefore, we have no powers to investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault or injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman