Summary: We will not investigate this complaint because the Council accepted it was at fault when it responded to Mrs D’s complaint about her father’s care charges. It provided a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mrs D and her father. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs D complains about the way the Council communicated with her about her father’s care charges. Mrs D says due to the Council’s communication failures her father now owes over £10,000 for care fees and this has caused them distress. Mrs D wants the Council to reduce the amount owed by 50% and agree a payment plan so the balance can be paid as agreed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs D’s father has a lasting power of attorney in place which allows her to make decisions about his financial affairs on his behalf. Mrs D’s father started receiving homecare and support arranged by the Council in early 2023. The Council sent
   Mrs D financial paperwork to complete on her father’s behalf. It also sent her a letter confirming how much her father needed to contribute to his care costs which it said she received. Mrs D said she did not receive follow up emails from the Council.
6. Mrs D complained to the Council about its poor communication regarding care charges and said this had led to a debt for care charges owed of over £10,000. The Council responded to the complaint and accepted it was at fault in the way it had communicated with Mrs D about the care charges. It also said it had delayed chasing for the debt.
7. To put things right the Council apologised to Mrs D and offered her a payment of £350 for any distress caused because of its fault. It said it could not reduce the amount owed as her father had received the care, but it would meet Mrs D to arrange a suitable repayment plan. It also said it would remind its officers in the Income Team of the need to communicate with customers within appropriate timescales to prevent a build-up of debt.
8. We will not investigate this complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The Council acted to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs D and her father before she complained to us. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. We could not achieve the outcome Mrs D wants.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs D’s complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The Council acted to remedy any injustice caused before Mrs D complained to us.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman