Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council provided information about the charges for her care. The Council waved the initial charges and there is not enough evidence of fault arising from the later charging.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that she wasn’t clearly informed by the Council about the cost of her care. There was an unreasonable delay in the financial assessment, which meant that she paid for more expensive care than she needed to.

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 (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X was provided with a care package for home care when she was discharged from hospital. Mrs X complains that she wasn’t clearly informed about the costs of the care package, which meant she wasn’t able to make an informed decision about whether she wanted it or not.
7. The Council recognised the information first provided about the cost of care was unclear and it remedied this by waiving the first month's charge. This is a suitable remedy in line with our guidance.
8. Following this, the cost of care was explained to Mrs X on several occasions, both by telephone and at a face-to-face meeting attended by her husband, who supported her with financial matters. As the Council properly informed Mrs X about the charges at this point, there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.
9. Mrs X complained the Council took too long to complete her financial assessment. However, she confirmed her capital exceeded the £23,250 threshold and therefore knew she would be responsible for the full cost of her care. As the result would not have been different, any delay did not cause enough injustice to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman