Summary: Ms B complained about the actions of the Council in respect of her mother, Mrs C when she went into a care home initially on a temporary basis but then became a permanent resident in April 2024. We have found fault in the Council’s actions which caused Mrs C some financial loss and Ms B uncertainty and distress. We are satisfied that the Council has put right the financial situation it has also agreed to make a symbolic payment to Ms B.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained on behalf of her mother Mrs C that Essex County Council (the Council) failed to:
• inform Ms B when Mrs C’s NHS-funded care was coming to an end;
• inform Ms B when Mrs C’s stay at the care home became permanent;
• explain the cost of the care;
• explain the charges on an invoice for care visits received at home before Mrs C went into hospital in December 2023; and
• explain in the complaint response what had gone wrong and why.
2. Ms B said this caused her distress and uncertainty in resolving Mrs C’s finances and her previous tenancy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Ms B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms B 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 temporary residential care

7. A temporary resident is someone admitted to a care or nursing home where the agreed plan is for it to last for a limited period, such as respite care, or there is doubt a permanent admission is required.
8. A council can choose whether to charge a person where it is arranging to meet their needs. In the case of a short-term resident in a care home, the council has discretion to assess and charge as if the person were having their needs met other than by providing accommodation in a care home. Once a council has decided to charge a person, and it has been agreed they are a temporary resident, it must complete the financial assessment in line with the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and the Care and Support Statutory Guidance.

Charging for permanent residential care

9. The Care Act 2014 (section 14 and 17) provides a legal framework for charging for care and support. It enables a council to decide whether to charge a person when it is arranging to meet their care and support needs, or a carer’s support needs. The charging rules for residential care are set out in the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and councils should have regard to the Care and Support Statutory Guidance.
10. When the Council arranges a care home placement, it must follow the regulations when undertaking a financial assessment to decide how much a person must pay towards the cost of their residential care.

What happened

11. Ms B’s mother was living at home with a package of care visits. Following a fall, she went into hospital in late 2023. On 9 December 2023 she was discharged to a care home under the recovery to home scheme, funded by the health service for a period of up to four weeks. The health service requested the Council carry out an assessment of Mrs C’s care and support needs during this period. On 19 December the case was discussed and the Council agreed to allocate the case to a social worker (SW) to begin a Care Act assessment with a view to long-term placement. Ms B was keen that Mrs C was involved in the decision and that she understood she would have to give up her council tenancy if she moved into a home permanently.
12. An Occupational Therapist (OT) visited Mrs C’s home with Ms B. Ms B was concerned that her mother would be at a high risk of falls between care visits and was becoming increasingly frail. OT visited Mrs C at the home and spoke to staff who felt she needed a permanent placement there. OT updated SW on the case.
13. On 2 January 2024 the Council held a multidisciplinary meeting to discuss Mrs C’s case. It noted her condition was deteriorating and she was likely to need longer term care, was unlikely to return home in the immediate future and she was no longer suitable for a recovery to home bed. The meeting said SW should carry out an urgent review.
14. On 5 January 2024 the health service funding ended and Mrs C became a temporary resident at the home. Ms B says the Council did not inform her what was happening. On 11 January SW visited Mrs C to assess her care and support needs. SW considered Mrs C needed full-time care at that point. Mrs C requested a period of time to consider her options and whether she could return home with a care package. SW agreed to a 12-week temporary stay. However, she made an error in completing the paperwork for the service placement team and said it was a permanent placement.
15. OT visited again on 24 January and noted Mrs C’s condition had improved significantly. She said Mrs C wanted to go back home after the period of respite.
16. On 30 January the Council held a multi-disciplinary meeting which Ms B and other family members attended. The family considered Mrs C would be better off in the care home but acknowledged she was very independent and sometimes expressed a desire to go home. All agreed to the 12-week respite period before settling on a long-term plan.
17. On 12 February SW confirmed to the manager of the home that the plan was for Mrs C to have a 12-week respite bed. The manager confirmed this was acceptable, but the cost was £1200 per week. SW had discussions with her manager over the cost and they suggested that Mrs C could return home. Ms B was not happy with this plan as she understood Mrs C could stay at the home for at least 12 weeks. The manager said that the Council would need to negotiate a lower price or find Mrs C a place at a different home.
18. On 23 February SW requested a two-week extension to Mrs C’s stay.
19. On 28 March SW informed Ms B that Mrs C’s placement had been confirmed as a temporary residence
20. On 5 April SW confirmed to the home that Mrs C would stay at the home on a permanent basis.
21. On 23 April Ms B emailed SW to get clarity on Mrs C’s placement. She said the home had received the permanent contract on 12 April, but she had been told it was temporary. Ms B also queried the financial assessment, disability-related expenditure and for what period Mrs C would have to pay a contribution.
22. SW replied on 9 May confirming that the temporary respite period ended on 11 April and the permanent care started on 12 April. They provided a link for Ms B to contact the financial assessment team.
23. In June 2024 the finance team said according to its records Mrs C had been a permanent resident since 26 February 2024. Due to the confusion over Mrs C’s status, Ms B had not been able to terminate the tenancy on Mrs C’s former home, and she continued to be liable for rent, utilities and benefit overpayments.
24. In July the Council said to Ms B that it had stopped the reminder letters for payments but could not stop the invoices. It advised her to ignore these while it sorted out the details.
25. On 23 July the Council noted Mrs C had been sent an invoice for domiciliary care at home even though she was resident in a care home. The Council terminated the care agency contract and rescinded the invoice.
26. On 6 September SW tried to resolve the queries Ms B had asked back in April. SW said they had made an error by failing to notify the placement team that Mrs C’s temporary stay had been extended beyond 26 February until 11 April 2024, so Mrs C had been charged for a permanent placement from 26 February rather than 12 April. On 16 October 2024 the Council amended the dates to correctly reflect Mrs C’s status.
27. On 27 November in response to a complaint from Ms B, the Council explained that SW had wrongly informed the service placement team that Mrs C’s placement was permanent from 26 February 2024 when it should have been temporary from 6 January until 11 April 2024. It also noted SW had incorrectly told Ms B on 28 March that the placement was temporary. It said the error had now been corrected and it apologised. It did not make clear if there had been any financial loss to Mrs C. Ms B complained to us.
28. In responding to my enquiries, the Council further explained that when a person goes into a care home for a temporary period of up to 12 weeks, they have to continue to pay rent and utilities on their own home as well as paying a contribution towards their placement in the care home. In recognition of this ‘double’ payment the Council normally disregards any payments for rent and utilities during this period. However, due to the confusion over Mrs C’’s status, Ms B was unable to terminate Mrs C’s tenancy in the usual period and incurred rent charges for longer. The Council said it had taken into account an additional £500 in the financial assessment to ensure Mrs C was not financially disadvantaged by the error.
29. The Council also confirmed Mrs C was not charged for the period 6 January to 26 February. She was charged £45.57 a week from 27 February to 26 March, taking into account the additional rent she paid. From 27 March to 7 April she was charged £170.80 per week and from 8 April to 16 August, £186 per week. The Council sent Ms B an invoice reflecting these amounts on 18 December 2025.
30. The Council apologised to Ms B and offered to meet with her to address any further concerns.

Findings

failed to inform Ms B when Mrs C’s NHS-funded care was coming to an end and failed to inform Ms B when Mrs C’s stay at the care home became permanent

31. There is no evidence that the Council informed Ms B when Mrs C’s NHS-funded care was coming to an end, nor when she was made a permanent resident. This was fault. The Council exacerbated the fault by incorrectly recording Mrs C’s status as permanent earlier than it actually was and informing Ms B incorrectly that Mrs C’s status was still temporary. This was fault which meant Ms B was unable to properly sort out Mrs C’s financial and housing affairs and she incurred extra rental and utilities costs.

failed to explain the cost of the care

32. There is no evidence the Council raised the issue of cost with Ms B or Mrs C during the visits and review meetings. It was only discussed with the manager of the Home. This was fault which meant Ms B did not know how much Mrs C would have to pay for her care. This uncertainty was exacerbated by the failure to correctly inform Ms B of Mrs C’s status at the care home.

failed to explain the charges on an invoice for care visits received at home before Mrs C went into hospital in December 2023

33. The Council has confirmed there are no outstanding invoices for care before Mrs C went into hospital. This complaint may have arisen from the incorrect invoice Ms B received in July 2024 for domiciliary care, which caused her some distress and confusion.

failed to explain in the complaint response what had gone wrong and why

34. The Council’s complaint response acknowledged the error in recording Mrs C’s residency status at the home as permanent too early and informing Ms B incorrectly that she was still temporary. The Council said it had corrected the financial assessments but did not give a full explanation of how this had been done or whether there had been any financial loss.
35. The Council’s response to my enquiries gave a fuller explanation of how the error occurred and what action the Council had taken to put matters right. It also confirmed these figures to Ms B in January 2026 and offered to meet with her. I welcome this action but note it had taken 18 months to reach this point despite the error being identified in June 2024. This was fault which exacerbated the length of time Ms B was unclear about Mrs C’s finances.

Back to top

Action

36. I am satisfied that the financial impact on Mrs C has been corrected but I consider there has been no recognition of the distress and uncertainty this caused to Ms B for an extended period.
37. So, I recommended that the Council within one month of the date of my final decision:
• Apologise to Ms B and makes a symbolic payment of £300.
38. The Council has agreed to my recommendation and should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

39. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman