Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delayed adult social care charges. Although the large debt came as a shock, there is not a significant injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation. The care fees are due and it leaves the estate in the same position it would be in regardless of any delay.

The complaint

1. Mr B said the Council failed to complete a robust financial assessment and failed to discuss funding with next of kin about the adult social care charges for Mr C. Mr B believes the Council missed opportunities to identify the funding issue sooner. So, it was a shock when the Council applied historic charges without prior discussion or agreement. Mr B wants the Council to waive these charges.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)

3. Mr C has died; Mr B is the personal representative of the estate and is a suitable person to make this complaint.
4. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr B’s relative, Mr C, received adult social care arranged by the Council. When the Council arranges care it must complete a financial assessment to decide what, if anything, the person can pay toward their care.
8. The Ombudsman expects, based on the wording of the statutory guidance supporting the Care Act, that councils complete financial assessments before care services start. This would enable people to know how much they must pay, if anything, before the care starts. However, in practice this rarely happens.
9. Councils have a duty to provide information about the charging arrangements for care and support. Mr C received free reablement care at home after a stay in hospital. Before the period of free care ended the Council sent Mr B information about how it charges for care support. During a telephone conversation with Mr B it was agreed Mr C would still need some care at home after the reablement period and that Mr B was aware of the financial assessment.
10. The Council then started writing to another family member about the care charges. I do not know why that was the case rather than continuing to correspond with Mr B as next of kin. The Council said based on state pension income Mr C did not need to pay. But it asked the family to complete the financial assessment form and provide bank statements for it to complete a full assessment. The family never provided this information.
11. Years later the Council found Mr C had other income and savings, meaning he should have been paying toward his care. The Council backdated the care charges. This was a significant amount and came as a shock to Mr B. However, that is not enough injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation. Mr C was always responsible to pay toward his care; the Council made the family aware at the relevant time that Mr C may need to pay toward care. There are funds in Mr C’s estate to pay the debt for his care fees. So, although he lost the opportunity to pay the costs over time, there is not a significant injustice. Mr C’s estate is in the same position it would be, regardless of any delay by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough injustice to justify our involvement. An Ombudsman investigation is unlikely to reach a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman