Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint, brought by Mrs Y, about how the Council delayed in assessing Mrs X’s care needs, miscalculated and delayed its payment of her 12-week property disregard, and the time taken to reply to her complaint. An investigation by us would not add to the Council’s investigation. There is no further outcome an investigation by us would achieve than those already provided or offered by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs X is Mrs Y’s mother. Mrs X moved to a residential care home placement in late 2024. After the move, Mrs X’s family contacted the Council regarding her care fees and finances. Mrs Y complains the Council:
1. delayed in carrying out a care needs assessment of Mrs X;
2. miscalculated the amounts Mrs X was due from the 12-week property disregard;
3. further delayed the disregard payment due to issues with a new system;
4. took six weeks to respond to her complaint.
2. Mrs Y says the care assessment delay and payment system issues delayed Mrs Y’s receipt of the property disregard monies she was owed. She says Council errors in the process and calculations cost her time and caused her trouble at a time when she was already distressed and vulnerable.

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:

• 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Mrs Y and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council has accepted it was at fault in delaying Mrs X’s care needs assessment and miscalculating the 12-week property disregard sum. It also accepts its new payment system added further time before Mrs X received the money due.
6. The Council has backdated the 12-week disregard payment and paid what Mrs X was due, and apologised for its delays and errors. That resolution of the financial issues and the apology are the kinds of outcomes we would have sought if we had investigated here. There is no different outcome on these issues which an investigation by us would now achieve for Mrs X.
7. During Mrs Y’s correspondence with the Council, an officer advised the Council would make a payment of £200 to acknowledge the errors’ impacts on Mrs X and Mrs Y. Mrs Y says the Council has not made that payment. Such a sum would be in line with the kind of acknowledgement remedy we would seek for time and trouble were we to investigate. If it has not already made this £200 payment, we suggest the Council contacts Mrs Y to arrange the payment to Mrs X or Mrs Y as soon as possible.
8. We note Mrs Y has also complained that the Council took six weeks to respond to her complaint. While this may be a slightly longer time than would have been preferable, it would not amount to further fault warranting any remedy additional to that already achieved or offered.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• we could not add to the Council’s previous investigation; and
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome than those already reached during the Council’s complaint process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman