Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council changed a person’s care and support arrangements and then financially assessed the contribution towards care costs. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms B complains about the way the Council changed her mother’s care and support arrangements which she says resulted in her mother, Ms C, having to pay towards her care and support instead of the Council funding her care. She also says the Council did not communicate with her despite her status as her mother’s attorney. Ms B says dealing with the Council and managing her mother’s care needs caused her significant distress. As an outcome she wants the Council to apologise and cancel the charge for care it says is owed.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• 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, or

(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. Ms C received homecare from the Council from November 2024. The Council said for the first six weeks it contributed towards the cost of Ms C care costs because the care cost more than contribution it had assessed she should pay.
6. A social worker completed a review of Ms C care needs at her home with Ms B present in December. The Council’s recorded note of the visit states Ms C said she was not happy with her carer and wanted to reduce the number of days from five support calls weekly to three support calls weekly. The social worker contacted the homecare provider to confirm the reduction in days and when it should start.
7. When responding to Ms B’s complaint the Council explained when the days reduced the contribution the cost of the care changed also. When Ms C received five days of care and support the Council paid the difference between her assessed contribution and the cost of care. When the days reduced to three days the cost of care was less than Ms C’s assessed client contribution. She therefore became a full cost payer. The Council did not find evidence to show Ms C never needed to contribute to the cost of her care.
8. The Council accepted it did not communicate with Ms B as well as it should have done at the home visit about the financial assessment. It acknowledged it should have communicated directly with Ms B as her mother had a lasting power of attorney in place which named Ms B as her attorney. It apologised for this and its communication and said it would update its records so Ms B would be the contact.
9. We will not investigate this complaint as any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The Council explained why there was a change in the contribution it made when Ms C’s care and arrangements changed. There was no evidence she never paid towards her care before the change to care arrangements happened. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. We cannot achieve the outcome Ms B wants.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman