Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council delaying in telling Mrs X her son no longer needed to pay a client contribution towards the cost of his care. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council decided her son did not have to pay his client contribution of just over £40 per week from April 2022, but the Council did not inform her about this until December 2022. She complains the delays of around 36 weeks meant her son missed out on earning interest on the money he paid unnecessarily. She complains the Council has refused to remedy the missed interest.

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 suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

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 X’s son, Mr Z, receives care and support. He paid a contribution towards his care charges of just over £40 per week.
6. The Council completed a financial assessment which determined Mr Z did not need to pay any client contributions from April 2022 onwards. However, the Council failed to tell Mrs X this until December 2022. This meant Mr Z continued to pay just over £40 per week when he did not have to.
7. If we were to investigate, it is likely we would find fault causing an injustice. This is because the Council accepted it delayed in telling Mrs X her son no longer needed to pay his client contributions. I am satisfied there was likely a delay of around 36 weeks.
8. I am satisfied the likely fault will have caused distress and frustration to Mr Z. This is because Mr Z continued to make payments when he did not need to, which in turn prevented him from having access to his money. It would also have been frustrating for Mr Z to have lost out on the opportunity to accrue interest.
9. Further, considering Mr Z was assessed as not needing to pay a client contribution, this would suggest Mr Z could not actually afford the £40 payment per week. Therefore, no having access to this money would reasonably have caused Mr Z distress and hardship.
10. We therefore asked the Council to consider remedying the injustice caused by the likely fault by making a symbolic financial payment of £200 to resolve the complaint early.

Back to top

Agreed action

11. To its credit, the Council agreed to resolve the complaint and will complete the above within four weeks of the final decision to put things right.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman