Summary: Mrs Z complained the Council failed to provide evidence to show it is seeking to recover the correct amount from her grandmother’s estate for unpaid care services. There is no fault by the Council as it correctly assessed and charged and notified Mrs Z’s grandmother who did not make any payments for the care received since 2019.

The complaint

1. Mrs Z complained the Council failed to provide evidence to show it is seeking to recover the correct amount from her grandmother’s estate for unpaid care services.
2. Mrs Z says this has had a significant emotional and financial impact on the 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. 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 Mrs Z and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs Z 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 social care services: the power to charge

7. A council has a duty to arrange care and support for those with eligible needs, and a power to meet both eligible and non-eligible needs in places other than care homes. A council can choose to charge for non-residential care following a person’s needs assessment. Where it decides to charge, the council must follow the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and have regard to the Care Act statutory guidance. (Care Act 2014, section 14 and 17)

Financial assessments

8. Where a council has decided to charge for care, it must carry out a financial assessment to decide what a person can afford to pay. It must then give the person a written record of the completed assessment. A council must not charge more than the cost it incurs to meet a person’s assessed eligible needs.
9. People receiving care and support other than in a care home need to keep a certain level of income to cover their living costs. Councils’ financial assessments can take a person’s income and capital into consideration, but not the value of their home. After charging, a person’s income must not reduce below a weekly amount known as the minimum income guarantee (MIG). This is set by national government and reviewed each year. A council can allow people to keep more than the MIG. (Care Act 2014)

Key facts

10. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.

11. Mrs Z’s grandmother, Mrs X, died in February 2024. Mrs X had been in receipt of adult social care services for several years. Since 2019, the Council had assessed Mrs X as requiring to make a financial contribution towards the care received. However, Mrs X failed to make any payment from 2019 until she died.
12. After Mrs X’s death a bill was found and this was given to the solicitor acting as executor who then contacted the Council about it. In December 2024, the Council wrote to the executor of Mrs X’s estate, saying there was an outstanding balance of £70,459.77 owed to the Council in respect of care received since 11 September 2019. The letter gave details of the invoice date, number and amount for each period.
13. The solicitor wrote to the Council explaining that at the date she died, Mrs X held just over £56,000 and so if the amount claimed by the Council is correct then her estate is insolvent. The solicitor asked for further details of the care assessment and financial assessment for Mrs X.
14. In response to representations made by the family, the Council agreed to carry out a reassessment of the charges. It did this once the family agreed to make a payment of just under £17,000. The Council explains this is the amount Mrs X should have paid between September 2019 and June 2022 for the care received. The Council says that this is the point at which it charged Mrs X the full amount for the care because it had evidence her savings were above the savings threshold. The reassessment carried out by the Council resulted in a credit of over £22,000 to the account. This meant the estate then owed just over £30,000.
15. Mrs Z made a formal complaint to the Council in June 2025. She complained about the following:
• Lack of family consultation about the care package
• Absence of financial assessment records
• Delay in seeking payment
• Unfair and speculative liability

She asked the Council to withdraw the claim for the outstanding balance and to provide evidence the charge was correct and notified to Mrs X at the appropriate time and in accordance with relevant regulations.

16. The Council replied on 10 October. It explained it held an extensive file in respect of Mrs X dating back to 1999. It said Mrs X had participated in all care assessments and had been able to express her wishes. It said it was satisfied the assessments were completed in accordance with the Care Act 2014.
17. It provided details of the dates it issued invoices to Mrs X as well as copies of the financial assessments completed. It also listed the names of care agencies that provided the package of care and the associated dates. It said it had invoiced Mrs X at the time the charges were incurred but no payments were received from Mrs X. It said the reassessment was carried out which reduced the capital held and therefore the amount due. It said it was satisfied it had acted in accordance with regulations.

Analysis

18. This complaint concerns the Council’s action to recover outstanding care charges from Mrs X’s estate. Mrs Z, her granddaughter, has concerns about the amount the Council is seeking to recover and whether it is correct. When I spoke to Mrs Z she explained that she did not live close to her grandmother and so was not aware of her living situation or finances in any detail. She said there are uncles but they have learning difficulties and so would not have been capable of dealing with Mrs X’s finances. Mrs Z is a beneficiary of Mrs X’s estate and so also has a personal interest.
19. Mrs Z has not provided any evidence which shows the amount charged is incorrect or that Mrs X did make any payments. The Council has provided detailed information about the charges including invoice dates and numbers and amounts charged each period. It has also provided copies of the financial assessments carried out each year and Mrs Z has not provided any evidence to show the assessments were incorrect. Based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied the amount claimed by the Council from Mrs X’s estate was correct.
20. However, after contacting the Council it agreed to carry out a re-assessment of the charges. Mrs X accumulated savings partly because she was not paying the weekly charge for the care services. As a result, her savings went over the savings threshold and she was charged the full cost for the package of care rather than a means tested weekly contribution. If Mrs X had paid the weekly charge her savings would not have accumulated in the same way.
21. The Council agreed it would carry out a re-assessment from the point in 2022 when Mrs X became a full cost payer on the condition the outstanding care charges up to that point were paid. So the executors paid around £17,000 to the Council. After completing the reassessment, the Council credited Mrs X’s account around £22,000 which reduced the amount outstanding to about £30,000. This credit covered the period from June 2022 to April 2023.
22. The Council says that it will carry out a further reassessment from April 2023 if the executor makes a further payment of around £4,000. It says this is based on the fact that if the payments had been made on time, Mrs X’s savings would have been around £27,000 and so it requested the payment on the same basis as previously which would bring the capital to below the savings threshold of £23,250. It is my understanding this was not completed as Mrs Z had made the formal complaint by this time. However, the Council says that it will carry out a further reassessment if a request and payment is made. I consider this is a fair offer by the Council and based on the previous reassessment outcome, it is likely to reduce the amount owed. However, this is a decision for Mrs Z and the executor.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I will complete my investigation as there is no evidence of fault causing a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman