Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to tell the family of the potential costs associated with his father’s, Mr Y’s, care. He also complained the Council failed to progress Mr Y’s case towards permanent care and it delayed providing information to progress the financial assessment. We find the Council was at fault for its communication with Mr Y’s family about the information required to progress the financial assessment. This caused frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to tell the family of the potential costs associated with his father’s (Mr Y) care. He also complained the Council failed to progress Mr Y’s case towards permanent care, it delayed providing information to progress the financial assessment and a social worker sent an inappropriate email. Finally, he says Mr Y’s care and support plan was inaccurate.
2. Mr X says the matter has caused distress and upset to the whole family.

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. We may investigate complaints from the person affected by the complaint issues, or from someone else if they have given their consent. If the person affected cannot give their consent, we may investigate a complaint from a person we decide is a suitable representative. (section 26A or 34C, Local Government Act 1974)
5. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Assessment

8. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. They must provide an assessment to everyone regardless of their finances or whether the council thinks the person has eligible needs. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the results they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where suitable their carer or any other person they might want involved.

Care and support plan

9. The Care Act 2014 gives councils a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan (or a support plan for a carer). The care and support plan should consider what needs the person has, what they want to achieve, what they can do by themselves or with existing support and what care and support may be available in the local area. When preparing a care and support plan the council must involve any carer the adult has. The support plan must include a personal budget, which is the money the council has worked out it will cost to arrange the necessary care and support for that person.

Charging

10. 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.
11. 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.
12. The financial limit, known as the ‘upper capital limit’, exists for the purposes of the financial assessment. This sets out at what point a person can get council support to meet their eligible needs. People who have over the upper capital limit must pay the full cost of their residential care home fees. Once their capital has reduced to less than the upper capital limit, they only have to pay an assessed contribution towards their fees. Where a person’s resources are below the lower capital limit they will not need to contribute to the cost of their care and support from their capital.

What happened

13. This chronology provides an overview of key events in this case and does not detail everything that happened.
14. Mr Y has dementia. His wife (Mrs Y) contacted the Council in June 2024. She said she was struggling to cope.
15. The Council called Mrs Y in September. Mrs Y said a day centre had now been in contact. Mr Y had attended and it was working well. The case note states the officer discussed funding with Mrs Y. Mrs Y said Mr Y was over the upper capital limit. The officer explained that while Mr Y was over the threshold, Mrs Y could organise respite. However, once he was under the threshold, the Council could complete an assessment of his needs.
16. The Council received a call from a mental health service in October. The officer from the service said there was an incident where Mr Y was aggressive.
17. The Council called Mrs Y to discuss the incident further. It asked whether Mr Y was still a self-funder. Mrs Y said he was. The Council explained Mrs Y could contact providers directly and ask for help. Mrs Y said she was not ready to decide about respite for Mr Y. The Council emailed Mrs Y after the call and provided her with some information on how to find care services.
18. The Council received a referral from the ambulance service in February 2025. It said Mrs Y needed urgent respite for Mr Y.
19. The Council assigned a social worker to Mr Y’s case the following week. The social worker asked Mrs Y if Mr Y was over the upper capital limit. Mrs Y said he was not. She said she did not know why the Council thought Mr Y was a self-funder. The Council explained the financial assessment and client contribution process to Mrs Y. Mrs Y provided the Council with information about Mr Y’s needs.
20. The social worker completed an assessment of Mr Y’s needs. She also spoke to Mrs Y again. She explained she would ask for six weeks respite for Mr Y. Mrs Y asked if Mr Y would have to pay. The social worker reiterated the financial assessment process.
21. Mr Y went into respite at a care home (Care Home A) in mid-March. Mrs Y completed an online financial assessment form.
22. Care Home A contacted the social worker and said Mr Y was displaying challenging behaviours. It said Mr Y was constantly wandering around at night and he was unsettled. It asked for 1:1 funding for Mr Y. The Council agreed to this.
23. The Council decided to look for alternative care homes that would better suit Mr Y’s needs. It also decided to continue respite for the remaining four weeks to get a full picture of whether Mr Y needed permanent care.
24. The social worker contacted several alternative care homes. She found a care home (Care Home B) that agreed to accept Mr Y in early April.
25. Mrs Y spoke to the social worker about Mr Y’s case. The social worker explained Care Home B was still a respite placement. However, she had asked whether it could be extended so the Council had enough time to understand Mr Y’s routine. Mrs Y agreed to this.
26. The Council extended Mr Y’s respite placement at Care Home B to late May.
27. The Council sent a letter to Mrs Y in mid-April and asked for further information to assess Mr Y’s finances and decide whether he would need to pay a client contribution.
28. The social worker spoke to Mrs Y in early May. Mrs Y asked about the financial assessment letter. She said she thought the Council was funding Mr Y’s respite care. The social worker said she had previously explained that everyone must have a financial assessment to work out their client contribution.
29. Mrs Y provided the Council with some more of Mr Y’s financial information in mid- May. The Council responded and said it had not received all the information it had originally asked for. Mrs Y responded and provided some further information.
30. Mr Y’s family asked for an extension to the respite placement at Care Home B so they could consider their options. The Council agreed to this.
31. The social worker emailed Mr and Mrs Y’s daughter (Ms Z) on 20 May and asked the family to send the remaining documents so the financial team could make a decision. Ms Z said they had provided the information. She asked what further information the team needed. The social worker told Ms Z to email the team and ask for clarification.
32. Mrs Y sent an email to the financial assessment team on 21 May and chased for an acknowledgement. She also asked whether the team needed any further information. Ms Z sent the Council an email on 28 May and said she was concerned the family had not received confirmation it had received the further documents Mrs Y provided.
33. Mrs Y complained to the Council in late May. She said it had failed to tell her about the potential costs associated with Mr Y’s care.
34. The social worker sent an email to Mr X and said the financial assessment team still did not have the information to progress the financial assessment. Mr X responded and said the family had already sent the information. He said they had not received an acknowledgment despite sending lots of emails chasing a response.
35. Mr X emailed the Council in early June and raised some concerns about inaccuracies in Mr Y’s care and support plan. The Council responded and made some minor amendments. It said if he was dissatisfied, he could pursue the matter further.
36. The Council responded to Mrs Y’s complaint on 11 June. It said it had several conversations with her and explained the financial assessment process and a potential client care contribution. It also said it signposted her to its online portal where it provides an indication of the client contribution.
37. Mrs Y referred her complaint to stage two of the Council’s process on the same day. She said she had not received an adequate response regarding the outstanding information required to progress Mr Y’s financial assessment. She also said Care Home B was only meant to be a temporary respite placement. She asked for suitable options for permanent care. Finally, she said the social worker sent an unprofessional and dismissive email.
38. The Council sent a letter to Mrs Y on the same day. It said it had not received the further information it had asked for about the transfer of funds from Mr Y’s bank account. It had therefore decided Mr Y was a self-funder and he would have to pay the maximum contribution.
39. The Council sent an email to Mrs Y about her complaint a few days later. It said its financial team had now confirmed Mr Y was a self-funder. Therefore, he did not need a social worker, and she could investigate alternative accommodation for Mr Y. It apologised for the tone and content of the social worker’s email. It said it had addressed this with the social worker in line with its disciplinary procedures.
40. Mrs Y asked the Council to review its decision about Mr Y’s finances. The Council wrote to Mrs Y in late June. In agreed to complete the review and asked for some further information.
41. Mr X referred the complaint to us in early July.

Back to top

Analysis

42. The Council explained the financial assessment and client contribution to Mrs Y in February 2025, before Mr Y’s respite placement started. Therefore, I am satisfied Mrs Y knew the Council would need to assess Mr Y’s finances to determine what client contribution he would need to make. The Council did not say it would fund Mr Y’s respite placement. Mrs Y completed an online financial assessment form on the Council’s online portal and therefore she aware of the process. The Council’s portal also allows for people to get an indication of their likely client contribution. I am satisfied the Council provided the family with sufficient information about the charging process and I do not find fault.
43. Mrs Y provided the Council’s financial assessment team with further information on 14 May. She asked for an acknowledgement of the information she provided and whether the team needed any further information. Ms Z also asked the same questions. The team failed to respond until it sent a letter on 11 June. The social worker said in emails from late May the team had not received the further information required and she told Ms Z and Mr X to contact the team further. However, they already had contacted the team, and they had not received a response. This is fault, which was frustrating for the family. The team should have acknowledged the information Mrs Y provided and explained an officer would write to her when they had assessed it.
44. Mr Y’s family were unsure whether they wanted Mr Y to have permanent care. The Council agreed to extend the respite placement so they could consider their options. This was reasonable. However, the Council later decided Mr Y was a self-funder. Therefore, it did not have to proceed any further with Mr Y’s case. The Council explained this to Mrs Y. I do not find fault.
45. The Council apologised for the email the social worker sent. It has addressed this appropriately with the social worker in line with its disciplinary procedures. I am satisfied the Council has taken suitable action to address the upset caused to Mr Y’s family. I do not recommend anything further.
46. Mr X raised some concerns about inaccuracies in Mr Y’s care and support plan. The Council acted promptly to resolve this and provided an updated care and support plan. I do not find fault.

Back to top

Action

47. By 16 April 2026 the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and the family for the frustration caused by the identified fault.
48. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Decision

49. I find fault causing injustice for which I have recommended a remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman