Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of her late uncle, Mr Y, that the Council gave incorrect information about the cost of care at home after discharge from hospital. We have found the Council at fault for failing to communicate effectively about the care charges. The Council agreed to waive some charges, to make a symbolic payment to Mrs X in recognition of the avoidable distress and uncertainty. It will also remind staff of the importance of providing clear and transparent information about care arrangements and charging.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained on behalf of her late uncle, Mr Y, that North Yorkshire Council (the Council) gave incorrect information about the cost of care at home after discharge from hospital. This caused them both distress and uncertainty, as well as financial loss to her uncle.

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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone who has died or who cannot authorise someone to act for them. The complaint may be made by:

• their personal representative (if they have one), or
• someone we consider to be suitable.
  (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(2) and 34C(2), 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 X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs X 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 and financial assessments

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).
8. Where a local authority has decided to charge, it must carry out a financial assessment of what the person can afford to pay and, once complete, it must give a written record of that assessment to the person. (Care and Support statutory guidance paragraph 8.16)
9. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance says Councils must be clear and transparent, so people know what they will be charged.

Intermediate Care and Reablement

10. Intermediate care and reablement support services are for people usually after they have left hospital or when they are at risk of having to go into hospital. They are time-limited and aim to help a person to preserve or regain the ability to live independently.
11. Regulations require intermediate care and reablement to be provided without charge for up to six weeks. This is for all adults, whether or not they have eligible needs for ongoing care and support. Councils may charge where services are provided beyond the first six weeks but should consider continuing providing them without charge because of the preventive benefits. (Reg 4, Care and Support (Preventing Needs for Care and Support) Regulations 2014)

What happened

12. The Council assessed Mr Y’s needs when he was still in hospital in March 2025. The care coordinator discussed Mr Y’s hospital discharge plan with him, and with his niece and representative, Mrs X. The discharge plan states Mr Y would need a reablement support package with several calls a day.
13. The care coordinator explained to both Mr Y and Mrs X that the reablement service would be free for six weeks. She also advised if this service was unavailable, Mr Y might need to pay a contribution towards the cost of the care package for that time. However, Mrs X said the Council did not inform her or Mr Y that the reablement service was not available.
14. The Council said, in response to my enquiries, that it offers either reablement or bridging services to people who need care at home for a short period, free for up to six weeks. It said the reablement service had no capacity to support Mr Y when he went home from hospital, and the bridging service did not cover his area. It therefore sourced a chargeable package of care to support Mr Y.
15. The Council registered a need for a financial assessment in March 2025, however due to ill health Mr Y’s return home was delayed until the end of March. Mr Y also returned to hospital briefly in April 2025 and returned home shortly after with the same package of care.
16. The Council did not complete Mr Y’s financial assessment until May 2025. After the financial assessment the Council wrote to Mr Y to confirm his weekly contribution and that this would apply from the start of the care package at the end of March 2025.
17. Mrs X complained to the Council about the financial assessment outcome and raising some concerns about the carers arriving late or failing to always complete their tasks.
18. The Council’s response, dated July 2025, said Mr Y reported he was satisfied with the care package, but it had informed the care agency about the issues raised. The Council accepted it had not explained its charging clearly and apologised for the confusion caused.
19. The Council advised Mrs X that the charges for Mr Y’s package of care for the first six weeks were still payable and sent invoices to him for these charges. After Mr Y’s death it continued to send invoices to Mrs X, on behalf of Mr Y’s estate.

Analysis

20. Mr Y’s discharge care plan specifically referenced reablement care. Regulations state reablement care should be provided free of charge for up to six weeks, whether or not the person has ongoing care needs. The Council says that because its reablement service did not have capacity, it considered a bridging service for Mr Y, but this did not provide services in his area.
21. I have seen no evidence the Council considered any alternative to the reablement or bridging services before sourcing a chargeable package of care. I have also seen no evidence this was revisited when Mr Y returned home from a further hospital stay in April 2025. Although the package of care met Mr Y’s care needs, the Council is at fault for not providing six weeks of free reablement care and for not communicating about charges in a timely manner. This caused Mr Y financial loss as well as Mrs X avoidable uncertainty and distress.
22. The Council told Mr Y, and Mrs X as his representative, about reablement care and that, if provided, this would be free for six weeks. While the Council advised of the possibility of another, chargeable, service being provided, neither Mr Y or Mrs X were updated about charging until after the financial assessment. The Council was at fault for not providing clear and transparent information, and for not confirming its charging decision in writing sooner. This meant neither Mrs X nor Mr Y knew what he was being charged, causing them both distress and uncertainty.
23. Mrs X complained to the Council about the unclear information charges. The Council apologised for any confusion but confirmed the charges were still payable. The Council continued to send invoices to Mr Y for this amount, and later to Mrs X as Mr Y’s next of kin. This caused both Mr Y and Mrs X avoidable distress and uncertainty.
24. The Council accepts it was at fault for not providing more clear and transparent information about charging to Mr Y and Mrs X. It has offered to waive the charges for six weeks of the care package after Mr Y was discharged from hospital. I welcome this remedy as it returns Mr Y’s estate back to the position it would be in had he received free reablement care.

Back to top

Action

25. In recognition of the injustice caused to Mr Y and Mrs X, I recommend, within one month of the final decision, the Council should:
• Apologise to Mrs X in accordance with our guidance on making an effective apology.
• Pay Mrs X £250 in recognition of the distress and uncertainty she experienced as a result of the fault.
• Waive the sum of £675.08, which is the cost of the six-week period when Mr Y should have received reablement care.
• Remind relevant staff of the importance of providing clear, transparent information about care arrangements and costs at the earliest opportunity. It should also remind staff to keep people and their representatives updated in a timely manner, to keep a clear record of any advice given, and to confirm information about charges in writing.
26. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

27. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman