Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care charges. There is not enough evidence of fault or injustice. The Council has given a thorough response which it is unlikely we would add to.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council has recently admitted it should not take an inherited pension into account in the financial assessment for adult social care costs. Ms B says her relative, Mr C, has therefore been overpaying for his care for nine years. Ms B says the Council does not give clear information about the finances and says Mr C owes a large sum of money for care but does not explain where the debt came from. Ms B says the Council has failed to reassess Mr C’s need and finances after bereavement. Ms B is finding it stressful and her health is suffering.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We may investigate a complaint on behalf of someone 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), as amended)

3. We have accepted Ms B as a suitable representative for Mr C.
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify the cost of our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

6. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
7. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. Mr C’s parents both died many years ago, Ms B supports Mr C with his care and finances. Some of the concerns Ms B now raises are late complaints that she has known about for more than 12 months. I can see no good reason why she could not have pursued them with the Ombudsman sooner and I see no good reason to consider them now.
11. The Council has given Ms B a thorough response to her concerns and refers to available evidence. It is therefore likely if the Ombudsman did consider those late concerns, we would not add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome. The Council has given a full explanation of all the assessments over the years and a breakdown of how the debt for care contribution has accrued.
12. However, Ms B raises a concern about how the Council considers an inherited pension in the financial assessment for adult social care, which she says she only found out about in the last 12 months.
13. It is more likely the Council did not tell Ms B the pension income should be disregarded from its financial assessment, given it does not agree this to be the case, and it has no case notes evidencing such a discussion.
14. There is nothing in the Council’s policy or the statutory guidance which prevents the Council considering the pension Mr C inherited. This is different to an occupational pension (received as an employee). In any event the Council’s complaint response says when it reviewed the financial assessment in 2018 including the pension it made no difference to what the Council assessed Mr C should pay. There is therefore no evidence of any injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault or of a significant injustice to justify an investigation. It is unlikely we would add to the detailed response the Council has given which relies on available evidence, so it is unlikely we would reach a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman