Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in completing its financial assessment and pursuing payment for Mrs Y’s home care charges. This is because any further investigation is unlikely to add anything to the Council’s own investigation and response. The Council has already reduced the care charges owed and taken action to improve so there is nothing more we could achieve by investigating further.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains on behalf of his mother, Mrs Y, that the Council provided unclear and incorrect information about home care charges after her discharge from hospital. He says the Council delayed completing the financial assessment and then backdated the charges at the full rate, which resulted in an unexpected bill and caused significant distress. He also says the Council wrongly pursued debt recovery action and charged for care that Mrs Y did not receive. Mr X wants the Council to cancel the debt, stop recovery action, and provide an apology, compensation, and fair repayment terms.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• 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
• it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a council review or appeal; 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council arranged a home‑care package for Mrs Y after her discharge from hospital in May 2024. It told the family that the care was chargeable and the amount Mrs Y would pay would depend on a financial assessment.
6. The Council did not complete the financial assessment until September 2024 because of staffing issues and a further hospital admission for Mrs Y. The assessment found that Mrs Y was a full‑cost payer and that charges applied from May 2024. The family considered the care unaffordable and cancelled it.
7. Mrs Y’s family complained to the Council, saying the delay in completing the financial assessment meant she should not be liable for backdated charges. They also said the Council gave misleading information about likely costs, charged during hospital stays, provided shorter care visits, and failed to explain a two-week notice period on cancellation.
8. The Council denied giving misleading information. It said staff did not suggest charges would be minimal or that fees would apply only after the financial assessment. It said the weekly amount shown in the care plan represented the full cost of the care and it was made clear to the family; the amount Mrs Y would have to pay would depend on the financial assessment.
9. The Council accepted fault for the delay in completing the financial assessment and partially upheld this complaint. It also accepted fault in charging for a two‑week notice period and removed this charge. However, it confirmed that Mrs Y was a full‑cost payer and that the care charges were legally payable and would not be written off.
10. The Council placed the account on hold during the complaints process, but an administrative error meant it remained on hold until October 2025. Once identified, the Council began recovery action and sent Mrs Y a debt recovery letter before issuing a recoverable invoice.
11. Mr X then complained to the Council about this invoice and subsequent recovery action. In December 2025, the Council issued a revised invoice that removed early charges and notice‑period charges, reducing the balance by almost a third. It apologised for the administrative error and advised Mrs Y could still appeal the charges on affordability grounds. The Council has also offered for Mrs Y to repay the charges in instalments.
12. We will not investigate the complaint. The Council has already investigated, acknowledged and remedied the identified faults, and explained its position. Further investigation would not achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint because we are unlikely to add anything to the Council’s own investigation and response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman