Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s financial assessment for adult social care charges and its decision to recover outstanding charges. This is because we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome for Mrs X and we would not normally recommend a symbolic remedy for a deceased person’s estate.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council pursued outstanding care charges owed by her late relative, Ms Y. Mrs X says the Council:
• based its assessment of the charges on a flawed financial checklist;
• did not inform Ms Y of the charges; and
• took two years to issue an invoice for the care provided.
2. After Ms Y died the Council issued an invoice for all outstanding charges. Mrs X says the Council did not engage with her. She says the situation caused her severe mental strain and believes Ms Y’s estate should not be liable for care charges between August 2022 and September 2024.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms Y went into residential care in August 2022. The Council completed a financial assessment checklist, which Ms Y signed, to calculate her contribution towards her care. The Council says the financial assessment was reviewed yearly. Mrs X says the checklist was inaccurate and the Council never sent Ms Y the outcome of its financial assessments or told her how much she had to pay.
7. Our guidance on remedies says the person receiving care should expect to make some contribution. So it is therefore reasonable to expect Ms Y knew she would have to make a contribution even if she did not know how much.
8. Ms Y had the capacity to manage her own finances. Any potential fault in the Council’s financial assessment of how much she had to pay, or its delay in issuing invoices, therefore affected Ms Y, not Mrs X.
9. If Ms Y had complained to us and we found the Council at fault, we would likely have recommended the Council apologise and make a symbolic remedy to recognise her personal injustice. Our guidance on remedies says we would not normally recommend a symbolic remedy to a deceased person’s estate. We could not therefore achieve a worthwhile outcome by investigating Mrs X’s complaint.
10. Mrs X wants the Council to waive all of Ms Y’s care costs between August 2022 and September 2024. However, Mrs X does not dispute that care was provided to Ms Y, has not questioned the quality of that care and says the invoices would have been paid had they been issued from the start. Our guidance on remedies says it will not normally be appropriate to recommend the Council waive fees for care that has been received. An investigation by us could not therefore achieve a worthwhile outcome for Mrs X.
11. The evidence shows the Council corresponded with Mrs X about the outstanding care charges after Ms Y’s death. An investigation by us would be unlikely to find the Council at fault on this point.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we could not achieve a worthwhile outcome for Mrs X. We would not normally recommend a symbolic remedy for a deceased person’s estate or ask the Council to waive care charges for care that was provided. We would be unlikely to find the Council at fault for how it engaged with Mrs X about Ms Y’s outstanding care costs after Ms Y died.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman