Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charges the Council says Mrs B owes for her contribution to care costs. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains about the way the Council communicated with her about a contribution it says she needed to pay towards her care costs. Mrs B says the Council confirmed she was nil contribution towards her care charges then a few months later sent her a letter stating she needed to pay a contribution towards her care costs. Mrs B says she experienced shock and distress as she did not receive the letters the Council said it had sent about care charges. She says the matter has impacted on her general wellbeing. As an outcome Mrs B wants the Council to waive the care costs it says she 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. Mrs B received support from the Council in the form of direct payments.
   Agency X, a third-party direct payments support agency helped Mrs B with manging direct payments. From 2018 the Council assessed her as having to make a nil contribution towards the costs for care.
6. The Council said it completed a financial assessment review annually using the financial information it had on record as it did not receive new information. In April 2025 it sent a letter to Mrs B confirming her contribution towards care costs would be nil.
7. Mrs B said in October she received communication from the Council which stated she owed care costs as she should have been contributing. Mrs B said she did not receive a letter the Council had sent in June which confirmed the changes to the contribution she was now expected to pay. She complained to the Council in October.
8. When the Council investigated Mrs B’s complaint found it had sent a letter to her in April confirming a nil contribution. Several months later it found out Mrs B had turned pension age and some of her income had changed. It completed a financial review and said it sent another letter to Mrs B in June 2025 outlining the change in the assessed contribution she would now need to pay. Mrs B disputed this and said neither her nor Agency X received communication from the Council about her assessed contribution.
9. In its response the Council explained why it had included half of Mrs B’s spouse’s occupational pension when calculating her assessed contribution. It said it was in her best interest for it to leave the disregard in place. This was because both her and her spouse received care and support and it had assessed them as a couple. It said it could not waive the charges as it had not found fault with its processes and had sent the letters and communicated with Agency X.
10. The Council reviewed Mrs B complaint when she said she was dissatisfied with its initial response. It confirmed that Agency X was aware of the change in Mrs B’s assessed contribution for care charges although Agency X had initially said it was not. The Council acknowledged its communication with Agency X may not have been clear. However, it did not find reason to waive the costs Mrs B owed.
11. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. We cannot say, on balance, whether Mrs B received the letter the Council sent in June 2025 which outlined changes in her contribution for care. If Mrs B did not receive the letter, it is likely she experienced distress when she became aware in October she would have to pay. However, the absence of the letter does not lead to the view the charges should be waived. This is because the law says people should be assessed financially to see if they can afford to contribute to the cost of the care and support, they receive from councils. If the person has been assessed properly and they can afford to contribute, then they must do so. In this case we cannot achieve the outcome
    Mrs B wants.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman