Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed making payment to his mother’s care provider for the live-in care it provided. He also complained the Council failed to provide effective communication. Mr X said the Council’s actions negatively impacted the care provider’s trust in the Council’s handling of his mother’s care provision and placed the ongoing provision of her care package in doubt. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide an apology and review its processes to avoid a reoccurrence of the issues identified.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council delayed making payment to his mother’s care provider for the live-in care it provided. He also complained the Council failed to provide effective communication. Mr X said the Council’s actions negatively impacted the care provider’s trust in the Council’s handling of his mother’s care provision and placed the ongoing provision of her care package in doubt. He would like the Council to provide an apology.

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 the future we may recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We may investigate complaints from the person affected by the complaint issues, or from someone else if they have given their consent. If the person affected cannot give their consent, we may investigate a complaint from a person we decide is a suitable representative. (section 26A or 34C, Local Government Act 1974)
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

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have investigated the above complaint for the period March 2025 to February 2026.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X, the care provider and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Charging for social care services

8. 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)

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Lasting Power of Attorney

9. A key principle of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is that any act done for, or any decision made on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be in that person’s best interests.
10. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 introduced the “Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA)”. This replaced the Enduring Power of Attorney (EPA). An LPA is a legal document, which allows a person (‘the donor’) to choose one or more persons to make decisions for them, when they become unable to do so themselves. The 'attorney' or ‘donee’ is the person chosen to make a decision on the donor’s behalf. Any decision has to be in the donor’s best interests.
11. Mr X holds LPA for Mrs Y regarding decisions relating to her health and welfare.

What happened

12. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
13. In late March 2025, the Council commissioned a care provider, Company A, to provide live-in care for Mr X’s mother, Mrs Y at her home.
14. On 10 April 2025, Company A contacted the Council to provide an update on the care package. It said the live-in carer was unable to leave Mrs Y unattended while they took their statutory break. Company A said this was because of Mrs Y’s medical condition which necessitated constant supervision. Company A said it therefore needed to charge for an additional two hours per day for a carer to cover the live-in carer’s breaks.
15. Company A emailed the Council on 1 May 2025 stating it had not received payment for Mrs Y’s care package for the previous month. The Council responded on the same day, apologising for the delay. The Council said it had contacted Mrs Y’s caseworker to chase progress regarding Company A’s individual service contract (ISC) for Mrs Y.
16. Company A chased progress with the Council on 6 and 7 May 2025. Company A said it may need to review whether it could continue to provide Mrs Y’s care package if it did not have the confirmed funding. The Council apologised to Company A, stating it would discuss the case at management level.
17. Company A contacted the Council again on 13 May 2025. It said the continued delay in paying Mrs Y’s care charges placed an unsustainable financial burden on the business. The Council replied on the same day; it apologised and said it had approved Mrs Y’s care plan. The Council said Company A should receive the ISC that day.
18. On 17 June 2025, the Council asked Company A to provide Mrs Y’s care and support notes. The Council said this was so it could consider Company A’s request for funding for the additional two hours of care.
19. Company A provided the requested information to the Council on 24 June 2025. It said the care notes reflected that Mrs Y needed supervision and there was a high risk associated with her being left alone.
20. Company A contacted the Council again on 11 August 2025 to request an update. It also stated that Mr X had not heard from the Council. Company A asked the Council to make immediate settlement of the care charges relating to the additional two hours of care. Company A said this part of the care package now totalled several thousand pounds.
21. At about this time, Mrs Y received a formal diagnosis of dementia.

The complaint

22. On 18 August 2025, Company A complained to the Council about the non-payment of the additional care cover, dating back to late March 2025, and about the Council’s communication with Mr X. Company A said the care charges for the additional two hours of care had accrued further. It said despite this, Company A had continued, in good faith, to provide uninterrupted care to Mrs Y. It said however, it could not continue to absorb such significant financial losses.
23. The Council provided its complaint response on 24 October 2025. It acknowledged Company A contacted the Council on 10 April 2025 to inform it of the need for additional care for Mrs Y. The Council said this required a reassessment of Mrs Y’s care package and acknowledged this delay may have caused challenges for Company A. The Council said the process had taken longer than expected and acknowledged it should have considered an interim support plan while it carried out the reassessment. The Council stated that having reviewed all the options, it considered Mrs Y was unable to manage with a lower level of support. It said the Council would therefore complete a proposal to fund the additional care as a priority.
24. In early November 2025, the Council agreed to increase the budget for Mrs Y’s care for the period April 2025 to early December 2025. It considered that from December 2025, suitable alternative accommodation should be considered. The Council agreed however, to continue funding beyond this date if necessary, to avoid any gap in care and support during the transition.
25. On 6 November 2025, the Council wrote to Company A. It acknowledged a delay in assessing the situation regarding the request for additional care and said it was taking steps to address the accrued unpaid funds. The Council explained its decision to provide funding up to early December 2025 and said the backdated payment should be included in the next payment run.
26. Company A brought the complaint to the Ombudsman in November 2025, subsequently clarifying that Mr X was the representative for Mrs Y. Company A stated it had not received the funding for the additional two hours of care dating from April 2025.

What happened next

27. The Council updated Mrs Y’s care and support plan in November 2025.
28. On 9 January 2026, the Council emailed Company A, confirming the rate at which the additional two hours of care would be paid.
29. A few days later, Company A requested an updated contract for Mrs Y’s care package, to include the additional two hours. Company A said it was continuing to provide this additional care in good faith.
30. In mid-January 2026, the Council completed an assessment which determined it was in Mrs Y’s best interests to remain in the community, rather than move to residential care.
31. In late January 2026, the Council added the additional two hours of care to Mrs Y’s care package, to be funded from that point onwards. The Council informed Company A of the update and said it would make a manual payment to cover the additional care for the period April 2025 to January 2026.
32. The Council made the backdated payment to Company A in early February 2026.

Analysis – the Council’s funding

33. In its response to our enquiries, the Council acknowledged Company A raised concerns in April 2025 about the live-in carers being unable to take their two-hour break safely due to the need to continually supervise Mrs Y. It says despite this, funding remained unchanged for several months, without including the additional care provision required. The Council acknowledges it did not amend the care and support plan to reflect this need until January 2026, and states this represents a delay in aligning funding with care needs.
34. Having reviewed the Council’s records, I agree with the findings of the Council regarding the delay in making payment for the additional two hours of care. The evidence also indicates a delay in making payment to Company A after Mrs Y’s package of care initially started in March/April 2025, as the records show Company A had to chase payment several times. The evidence indicates this was due to a delay by the Council in providing an ISC for Mrs Y’s care package.
35. Whilst it is positive the Council identified some delay in the process as part of its own complaint investigation, the delay incurred is fault.
36. The injustice is to Company A who absorbed the cost of the care while the Council considered and processed the care funding. The injustice is also to Mrs Y and Mr X, namely uncertainty as to whether the package of care would continue, given that Company A considered giving notice to the Council due to the lack of payment.

The Council’s communication

37. In its response to our enquiries, the Council acknowledged that following a review in June 2025, there is limited evidence of consistent communication with Company A or Mr X. The Council says there are also gaps in recorded communication after late 2025.
38. The Council says it recognises the shortfall in communication caused delays; it also acknowledges the impact this had on Mrs Y and her family. The Council says however, despite the limited communication and delays incurred, Mrs Y’s care package was not stopped at any point.
39. Having reviewed the Council’s records, I agree with the findings of the Council regarding its limited communication with Mr X and Company A. This lack of communication is fault.
40. This fault caused an injustice to Mrs Y, Mr X and Company A, namely frustration and uncertainty as to when the issues regarding funding would be resolved. Whilst I acknowledge Mrs Y’s package of care did not stop during this period, this is due mainly to Company A’s willingness to continue to provide care while it waited for the Council to resolve the issues raised.

Back to top

Action

41. To address the injustice identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the final decision:
1. Provide apologies to Mr X, Mrs Y and Company A for the fault identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
42. The Council has also agreed to take the following additional action within three months of the final decision:
1. Review the Council’s procedures regarding the provision of individual service contracts and the payment of care charges, to ensure it has appropriate processes in place to avoid a recurrence of the delays identified in this decision, and to ensure the Council maintains effective and timely communications with all relevant parties regarding the implementation and funding of care and support plans.
43. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

44. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above actions to remedy the injustice identified and I have therefore concluded my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman