Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council dealt with Mr B’s request for a refund of residential care fees he paid for his wife’s care. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council refused his request to refund care fees he paid for his wife’s care because of his mistake. Mr B says he believed savings were held in a savings account with joint names, but he later found out the savings account was in his sole name. Mr B says he cared for his wife for several years and this had impact on his physical health and mental state at the time. He says he has lost £20,000 from his savings due to paying the care fees. Mr B says he made a mistake, and the Council should refund the care fees he paid as his wife was eligible for Council funded care.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 including the Council’s response to his complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. 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 is entitled to access Council support to meet their eligible needs. The upper capital limit is currently set at £23,250. Below this level, a person can seek means-tested support from the Council. This means the Council will complete a financial assessment of the person’s assets and will make a charge based on what the person can afford to pay.
6. Mr B first contacted the Council in April 2024 to request a needs assessment in line with the Care Act 2014. A Council officer visited his home in May 2024 to follow up on the request. Mr B told the officer he had arranged a two-week private respite stay for his wife in a care home and would consider long term arrangements depending on how the respite placement went.
7. Mr B queried what would happen when his wife’s finances fell below the upper capital limit. The officer said when her finances approached the capital limit, he should contact the Council for a needs assessment as well as a financial assessment. The officer told Mr B at that stage the Council would calculate any assessed contribution.
8. Mr B agreed with the officer to not complete a needs assessment as he said his wife had funds above the upper capital limit (held jointly in a savings account) and he had already arranged privately funded care. The Council then closed Mr B’s case.
9. Mr B contacted the Council in January 2025 to request a needs assessment as his wife’s finances was near the upper capital limit. Mr B confirmed he had sent financial paperwork to the Council’s financial assessment team, and the joint savings account was now at £47,000 (£23,500 each between he and his wife).
10. The Council completed a needs assessment and later a financial assessment. It started paying for Mr B’s wife’s care fees from January 2025. Mr B contacted the Council to say he had now realised the savings account was in his sole name therefore his wife should not have self-funded her care and he had made a mistake.
11. When the Council responded to Mr B’s complaint it said it could not accept liability for Mr B’s mistake. It said as his wife’s LPA Mr B had said she would be
    self-funding her care. It acknowledged Mr B’s frustration caused by the situation and as a goodwill it agreed to backdate its funding responsibility to three months earlier than when it became financial responsible for the placement.
12. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Council acted on information Mr B provided which suggested Mr B’s wife should fund the care home placement. As his wife’s LPA Mr B is his responsibility to ensure any financial decisions are in his wife’s best interests. This includes checking banking details as required. The Council was not responsible for the mistake but it still acted provide a goodwill gesture.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman