Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her mother, Mrs Y, about delays in the Council’s financial assessment of her residential care charges. Mrs X also complained the Council did not respond to her emails and did not keep her informed about how it assessed Mrs Y’s capital. Mrs X says the Council’s actions caused significant avoidable distress and uncertainty. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and a financial remedy and arrange an appointment to discuss payment of the care charges.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained on behalf of her mother, Mrs Y, about delays in the Council’s financial assessment of her residential care charges. Mrs X also complained the Council did not respond to her emails and did not keep her informed about how it assessed Mrs Y’s capital, including her share of a property. Mrs X says the Council’s actions caused significant avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty regarding Mrs Y’s care fees. Mrs X would like the Council to apologise and discuss with her the options regarding the payment of the care charges.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have investigated the above complaint for the period November 2024 (when the Council carried out its Care Act assessment) to July 2025 (when Mrs X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs X and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Charging for permanent residential care

7. The Care Act 2014 (section 14 and 17) provides a legal framework for charging for care and support. It enables a council to decide whether to charge a person when it is arranging to meet their care and support needs, or a carer’s support needs. The charging rules for residential care are set out in the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014, (the Regulations). Councils should also have regard to the Care and Support Statutory Guidance.
8. Local authorities carry out a financial assessment to decide what a person can afford to pay. The financial assessment considers a person’s income and capital. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance says local authorities must provide a written record of the completed assessment. This should explain how the assessment was carried out and be provided in a manner that is easily understood, in line with the Council’s duties on providing information and advice.
9. 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

10. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
11. Mrs Y lived with her daughter, Mrs X in an annex of their home, Property A. Mrs X (and her husband) and Mrs Y each own a 50% share of Property A.
12. Mrs Y has a health condition. She received care at home until she moved into a residential care home in April 2024. Mrs Y funded the cost of her care as her capital was above the upper capital limit.
13. In November 2024, the Council carried out a Care Act assessment.
14. Mrs Y’s capital had decreased by this time. The Council received a request to carry out a financial assessment on 26 November 2024.
15. Mrs X spoke to an advisor at the Council in January 2025. At about this time, Mrs X provided details of Mrs Y’s finances, including bank statements and information regarding the joint ownership of Property A.
16. Mrs X contacted the Council in February 2025 to request an update regarding the financial assessment.
17. On 20 February 2025, Mrs X complained to the Council. Mrs X said she had contacted the Council several times but had received no updates regarding the financial assessment. Mrs X said she was keen to resolve the financial side of Mrs Y’s care, and the failure to keep her informed was becoming increasingly frustrating and stressful.
18. Mrs X contacted the Council again on 10 March 2025; she said she had yet to hear anything following her conversation with the assessor in January. Mrs X asked the Council when she could expect an outcome as she said the Council had not given her any idea of timescales.
19. Mrs X made a further request for an update on 4 April 2025. She said no-one from the Council had contacted her.
20. The Council issued its complaint response on 22 April 2025. It acknowledged delays in completing the financial assessment and apologised for this, as well as for the lack of response to her emails. The Council said it would request a formal valuation from the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) of Mrs Y’s share of Property A as part of the financial assessment process.
21. The Council received the VOA’s report in June 2025.
22. On 7 July 2025, the Council provided Mrs X with written notification of the financial assessment decision.
23. Mrs X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s complaint response and brought the matter to the Ombudsman.

Analysis – delays in the financial assessment

24. Mrs X complained the Council incurred delays as part of the financial assessment. The Council acknowledged delays in this process as part of its complaint response. In its response to our enquiries, the Council acknowledged that despite conversations with Mrs X starting in January 2025, the Council did not confirm the outcome of the financial assessment until July 2025.
25. It is positive the Council identified the delays as part of its own complaint investigation. I agree with the Council’s findings; the time taken to confirm the outcome of the financial assessment constitutes delay. This delay is fault causing an injustice, namely avoidable frustration and uncertainty regarding the Council’s financial assessment decision.

Failure to respond to emails

26. As part of its complaint response, the Council acknowledged a lack of response to Mrs X’s emails. In its response to our enquiries, the Council acknowledged an assessment officer spoke with Mrs X in January 2025 but did not respond to the information she provided, or her enquiries made over the following weeks.
27. It is positive the Council identified this issue itself as part of its own complaint investigation. Nevertheless, the failure to respond to Mrs X’s emails is fault causing an injustice, namely avoidable frustration and distress.

Failure to inform Mrs X about how it assessed Mrs Y’s capital

28. The Council provided Mrs X with written notification of the outcome of the financial assessment on 7 July 2025. However, although the letter states the assessment process was carried out in accordance with the Council’s charging policy and the Regulations, it did not explain how the Council assessed Mrs Y’s capital and/or how it calculated the care charges.
29. The Council says it did not use the usual template letter used to communicate financial assessment decisions. It says this would have given Mrs X notice on the full cost payer arrangement and signposted her to seek independent financial and legal advice regarding understanding options to meet the cost of care.
30. The Council acknowledges the decision letter dated 7 July 2025 failed to explicitly state the reason for Mrs Y being considered responsible to pay the full cost of her care. As previously stated, local authorities must give a written record of its assessment which should explain how the assessment was carried out. The Council failed to do this when it issued its decision letter on 7 July 2025. This is fault causing an injustice, namely uncertainty as to how the Council had assessed Mrs Y’s capital, including her share of Property A.
31. The Council says it has undertaken training across its teams to improve its service and to avoid a recurrence of the issues identified. The Council says the training undertaken is to ensure:
• Correspondence is directed appropriately and is acknowledged in a timely manner
• Staff are aware of how to escalate disputes regarding financial assessments, particularly where the value of a shared property is disputed
• Appropriate decision-making points are recorded and communicated
• Communication with service users contain a full and clear explanation of decision-making, as well as providing clear signposting for advice and guidance
• Regular quality assurance checks of financial assessments are carried out to ensure the above points are applied correctly
32. The Council also says it intends to provide a financial remedy of £400 to Mrs Y in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused. This amount is in accordance with our published Guidance on Remedies and is an appropriate figure in this case.

Back to top

Action

33. To address the injustice identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the final decision:
1. Provide an apology to Mrs X and Mrs Y for the fault identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings;
2. If not already paid, make a symbolic payment of £400 to Mrs Y in recognition of the distress and uncertainty caused, and
3. Arrange an appointment with Mrs Y and/or Mrs X to discuss the care charges to facilitate a resolution about how they will be paid.
34. The Council has also agreed to take the following additional action within three months of the final decision:
1. Carry out a review of the Council’s processes for carrying out financial assessments to ensure the steps already taken to improve its service, as explained by the Council, are implemented into the process.
35. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

36. I have found fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above actions to remedy the injustice and I have therefore concluded my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman