Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges the Council says Mr B owes for the care he received. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council charged him for care when he was entitled to reablement care. He says the Council did not consider his several hospital admissions whereby he is entitled to free care. Mr B says the Council sent him a bill for care fees totalling over £15,000. He says social services failed to review his needs as the team was too busy so he should not have to pay the care bill. As an outcome he wants the Council to cancel the charges it has sent him for care costs he owes.

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:

• 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

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. Mr B started received care and support arranged by the Council in
   September 2020. Mr B complained to the Council about a bill sent to him for care charges which totalled over £15,000. Mr B said he did not owe the charges as he had been in hospital several times between 2021 and 2024 and should have received reablement care for free when he was discharged home.
6. The Council investigated Mr B’s complaint and in summary it found it should not have charged him for care services between October 2020 and March 2021 due to government rules in place at the time. It also found it should not have charged him for care between November 2023 and January 2024 as he was in hospital.
7. The Council said Mr B did not receive reablement care on the occasions he was discharged from hospital. It said his care and support restarted each time he was discharged from hospital. It confirmed it had completed care reviews throughout the period complained about and its officers told Mr B about care charges.
8. The Council confirmed the amount Mr B owed for care charges which had accumulated between 2021 and November 2024 when he stopped receiving care. It said it would arrange for its finance team to contact him to discuss a suitable repayment plan.
9. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. The Council confirmed Mr B was not entitled to reablement care. Reablement care services is usually limited to a maximum of six weeks in any case and this does not cover the whole period Mr B has been charged for care services. The evidence available now, supports the view the Council completed care reviews and told Mr B he would have to pay for care.
10. The Council has offered the opportunity for Mr B to agree a suitable repayment plan to pay the charges he owes. This is a reasonable response to ensure Mr B pays an affordable payment to repay the debt.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman