Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr Y’s charges for care. The Council has already provided a suitable remedy to recognise the injustice caused by fault, and we could not achieve a more meaningful outcome by investigating the matter further.

The complaint

1. Mrs X is Mr Y’s family member. She complained the Council delayed issuing invoices for Mr Y’s care and sent inaccurate and inconsistent correspondence. Mrs X said the matter caused Mr Y and his parents significant anxiety and uncertainty. She wanted the Council to apologise, make service improvements, pay compensation and honour its original calculation of Mr Y’s charges.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
3. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y resides in a nursing home and pays the full cost of his care to the Council, which in turn pays the Care Provider. Mr Y also receives Funded Nursing Care (FNC) which the NHS pays directly to the Care Provider to cover the additional costs of his nursing care.
7. The Council sent Mr Y an invoice in August 2025 which said he would pay the Council £1,254.94 weekly. The Council then told him in September 2025 the charge was in fact £1,450. Mrs X complained on Mr Y’s behalf.
8. The Council explained in its complaint responses that its officer had wrongly deducted FNC of £254.06 from the cost of Mr Y’s nursing home placement, originally £1,500 per week. It explained that when it had realised its error, it negotiated with the Care Provider to reduce the cost of the placement to £1,450.
9. The Council said it had not then contacted Mr Y’s family swiftly to clarify the situation. The Council also acknowledged it had wrongly left a standard statement in a letter about having discussed the matter with Mr Y when it had not done so. The Council explained steps it would take to avoid similar issues arising in future. It apologised and credited Mr Y’s account by £1,245 to recognise the impact of fault. It explained, however, the charge of £1,450 weekly was rightly owed.
10. When we consider what injustice has been caused to complainants by any fault, we consider what would have happened but for the fault. If we investigated this complaint, we would likely decide the impact of the fault was confusion and frustration. We would not decide the fault had caused a quantifiable financial injustice that would justify recommending the Council charge Mr Y less than the actual cost of his care. This is because, but for the fault, Mr Y would have paid £1,500 weekly for his care from June 2025.
11. Any remedy we would recommend if we investigated this complaint would likely be a symbolic payment to recognise confusion and frustration. The Council has already provided a suitable remedy in this case, and we will not investigate the matter further because doing so would not achieve a different or more meaningful outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the Council has already provided a suitable remedy to recognise the impact of fault, and we could not achieve a different outcome by investigating the matter further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman