Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council assessed Mr X’s ability to contribute to costs for his care and support. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council asked him to pay for care between April 2025 and May 2025 despite not telling him about charges and providing him with financial information when his care and support started in April 2024. Mr X said if the Council had provided him with the correct information and advice when he started receiving care then he would not have accepted care because it is unaffordable. Mr X feels the Council was prompted to assess his finances when the care provider increased its charges.
2. Mr X says he has experienced distress, worry and anxiety and adverse impact on his overall wellbeing. Mr X wants the Council to cancel the invoice for care charges, apologise to him and ensure its officers provide correct information about financial assessments.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X started to receive care and support from the Council in April 2024. He received direct payments and said the officer who dealt with his case told him he would not have to pay for care costs.
7. The Council said Mr X asked to change the direct payments arrangement in October 2024 and he had conversations and received a visit from an officer at the end of October. At this visit Mr X signed a new direct payments and completed a financial assessment. It charged Mr X from mid-April 2025.
8. Mr X complained to the Council in June 2025 saying it had charged him inappropriately for his care. He said the Council had provided him with incorrect information and had not completed a financial assessment from the start.
9. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint and confirmed he started to receive direct payments from April 2024. It acknowledged it did not have enough evidence to show it had provided him with financial information about its charging process when the care started. It said Mr X had received information about charging its officer went to visit him. It told Mr X it had not charged him from
   April 2024 and any charges had started from April 2025. It also said the direct payment had stopped in July 2025 at Mr X’s request.
10. We will not investigate this complaint as any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The Council did not charge Mr X for support he received before April 2025. Mr X was aware he may be charged when he spoke to the Council between October 2024 and April 2025. The Council was entitled to charge from April 2025 once it had completed its financial assessment.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman