Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed Mr X’s contribution to his care and then asked him to pay backdated charges. This is because we have decided any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed properly assess him financially and tell him how much he needed to contribute to his care. He says the Council backdated care charges once it agreed his assessed contribution with him. Mr X says this has caused him injustice because it impacts his mental wellbeing and his financial situation and causes him distress. Mr X would like the Council to waive the debt for the period in dispute.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. People may complain to us about injustice caused by:
• ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ by a public organisation we could investigate; or
• the actions of an organisation in connection with privately arranged adult social care.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1) or section 34C(1)(a)).

3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), or section 34B(8)).
4. We will not normally investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), or section 34B(8)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X receives direct payments from the Council which he uses to meet his care and support needs. The Council has a non-residential care charging policy in place which was relevant at the time of events.
8. The Council said its officer contacted Mr X in July 2025 to tell him about changes to its charging policy. The officer told Mr X how much he needed to contribute to his care in August.
9. The Council had continued discussions with Mr X between September and December about disability related expenditure. When dealing with the complaint from Mr X it confirmed the charges remained payable and it could arrange an affordable repayment plan.
10. The law means we can choose only to investigate a complaint where the person has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by the body complained about. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
11. I recognise the circumstances of Mr X’s complaint have affected them, but this is not significant enough to warrant us investigating.
12. We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed Mr X’s contribution to his care and then asked him to pay backdated charges. The evidence available strongly suggests the Council assessed Mr X in line with its non-residential charging policy and made him aware he would need to contribute. It had continued with Mr X about disability related expenditure before confirming how much he would need to contribute. The Council is entitled to backdate charges where it has assessed a person can afford to pay in line with the Care Act 2014.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman