Summary: Mr X complained the Council misled his late father, Mr Y, about the costs of care and delayed his financial assessment. He also complained the Council asked Mr Y to sign documents he did not have the mental capacity to understand. We found the Council at fault for delaying completing a financial assessment for Mr Y and for not properly considering his mental capacity to make decisions about his finances. The Council should repeat its offer to waive some of the care charges and apologise.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council misled his late father, Mr Y, about the costs of care and delayed his financial assessment. He also complained the Council asked Mr Y to sign documents he did not have the mental capacity to understand. Mr X said this caused Mr Y and his family distress and financial loss. He seeks a refund of the care costs and for the Council to improve its services.

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 Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr 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 for social care services: the power to charge

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)

Financial assessments

8. Where a council has decided to charge for care, it must carry out a financial assessment to decide what a person can afford to pay. It must then give the person a written record of the completed assessment.
9. The Care & Support Statutory Guidance states that an assessment should be carried out over an appropriate and reasonable timescale taking into account the urgency of needs and a consideration of any fluctuation in those needs. Local authorities should inform the individual of an indicative timescale over which their assessment will be conducted and keep the person informed throughout the assessment process.
10. 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, which in the UK is currently £23,250. People who have over the upper capital limit usually must pay the full cost of their care. When their capital is less than the upper capital limit, they usually pay an assessed contribution towards their fees.

Intermediate Care and Reablement

11. 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.
12. Regulations require intermediate care and reablement to be provided without charge for up to six weeks. (Reg 4, Care and Support (Preventing Needs for Care and Support) Regulations 2014)

Mental Capacity Act

13. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is the framework for acting and deciding for people who lack the mental capacity to make particular decisions for themselves. The Act (and the Code of Practice 2007) describes the steps a person should take when dealing with someone who may lack capacity to make decisions for themselves. It describes when to assess a person’s capacity to make a decision, how to do this, and how to make a decision on behalf of somebody who cannot do so.

Mental capacity assessment

14. A person aged 16 or over must be presumed to have capacity to make a decision unless it is established they lack capacity. A person should not be treated as unable to make a decision:

• because they make an unwise decision;
• based simply on: their age; their appearance; assumptions about their condition, or any aspect of their behaviour; or
• before all practicable steps to help the person to do so have been taken without success.

15. The council must assess someone’s ability to make a decision when that person’s capacity is in doubt. How it assesses capacity may vary depending on the complexity of the decision.
16. An assessment of someone’s capacity is specific to the decision to be made at a particular time. The person assessing an individual’s capacity will usually be the person directly concerned with the individual when the decision needs to be made. More complex decisions are likely to need more formal assessments.

What happened

17. Mr Y was admitted to hospital in late 2024 following a stroke. Mr Y was discharged in February 2025 with a reablement care package. This was arranged by the NHS and free of charge for four weeks.
18. A referral was made to the Council in March 2025 and it took over responsibility for Mr Y’s care provision when the reablement service ended. The Council carried out a care needs assessment in early April 2025. Records state that Mr Y and his wife, Mrs Y, were given information about care charges during the assessment.
19. Mr X said that Mr and Mrs Y were misled during the assessment. He said they were told that a financial assessment would be needed but that there would not be charges because Mr Y’s capital was below the upper limit.
20. Mr Y was asked to sign a form about care charges during the needs assessment. Mr X said that Mr Y did not have the mental capacity to make decisions about his finances and therefore he should not have been asked to sign the form. Council records show the social worker did consider Mr Y’s capacity to make decisions about his care needs, but there is no record that they considered his capacity around financial decisions.
21. The Council contacted Mr and Mrs Y in June 2025 to arrange a financial assessment. It sent a letter to Mr Y in July 2025 to tell him about his assessed contribution towards his care costs. The Council then sent Mr Y a letter advising that he would be charged for care costs since March 2025.
22. Mr X, on behalf of Mr and Mrs Y, disputed the charges and raised a complaint with the Council. Sadly Mr Y passed away in August 2025.
23. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in late August 2025. It acknowledged the delays but said that Mr Y had been considered as having the mental capacity to sign the charging form. It apologised for the distress caused and offered to waive 50% of the care costs.

Analysis

24. The Council was aware of Mr Y and his need for care in March 2025. It took over providing a package of care for him in late March 2025 but did not complete a financial assessment for Mr Y until June 2025. This was a delay of over three months which caused Mr Y and his family uncertainty. I have not seen any evidence of a good reason for this delay and therefore find the Council at fault.
25. The Council’s records show Mr Y had suffered a major stroke and was experiencing symptoms related to this and dementia, which could have affected his ability to make some decisions. The social worker who assessed Mr Y’s care needs in April 2025 considered his capacity to make decisions about his care. However, I have seen no evidence the Council considered his mental capacity to make decisions about finances. This is fault.
26. Mr X says his late father suffered financial loss as a result of the Council’s fault. Had the Council properly considered Mr Y’s mental capacity and the financial assessment had been more timely, the care charges would still have been incurred. The Council has apologised and offered to waive 50% of the care charges for Mr Y in recognition of the uncertainty caused by the delay. Under the circumstances I consider this to be a suitable remedy.
27. It is worth noting our remedies aim to try to put the person back in the position they would have been if the fault had not happened. Where someone has died, we will not normally recommend a symbolic payment in the same way as we might for someone who is still living. We would not expect a public or private body to make a payment to someone’s estate. Therefore, if the impact of a fault was on someone who has died, we will not recommend an organisation make a payment in recognition of, for example, the impact caused by a delay that person might have received while they were alive. This is because the person affected by the delay cannot benefit from such a payment.
28. The Council has recently agreed, in response to another complaint, to review its procedures to ensure it issues invoices within a reasonable timeframe and provides clear updates when delays are unavoidable. I therefore do not recommend any further service improvements in relation to this issue.
29. As I have found fault with the Council for failing to consider Mr Y’s mental capacity in relation to financial decisions, the Council should remind relevant staff that mental capacity is decision-specific and must be considered and clearly recorded for each significant decision, including financial contributions to care.

Back to top

Action

30. In recognition of the injustice caused, I recommend, within one month of the final decision, the Council should:
• Apologise to Mr X and Mrs Y, in recognition of the distress caused, in accordance with our guidance on making an effective apology.
• Confirm it will waive 50% of the care charges incurred by Mr Y, as it has already offered, if it has not already done so.
• Remind relevant staff that mental capacity is decision-specific and must be considered and clearly recorded for each significant decision, including decisions about financial contributions to care.
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman