Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charging for adult social care. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken to waive charges before it explained how to pay them. The remaining charges are correctly due. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would reach a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms B says the Council failed to ensure her understanding of paying for adult social care for her relative Mr C. Ms B says the Council failed to review the care package quickly enough which might have identified that Mr C was not paying his contribution. This has led to Mr C owing over £3000 for his care which is causing stress on top of the daily challenges of supporting Mr C. Ms B wants the Council to waive the debt.

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:

• 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))

3. 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 the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. When the Council arranges adult social care, it must also assess what, if anything, the person can afford to pay toward their care. Mr C was moving from children’s services to adult’s services, so paying for care was new to him.
7. The Council says it gave Ms B all the necessary information and the outcome of the financial assessment confirming how much Mr C should pay. Ms B does not dispute this, she says a misunderstanding on her part means she did not pay but believes the Council should have better checking systems to pick this up sooner.
8. The Council says government guidance and its own policy requires a check within six months, and that it completed this.
9. The Council said it would waive payments for the time before it had clearly advised Ms B about setting up and managing direct payments. It has waived over £600.
10. Mr C’s contribution toward his care does not stem from any Council fault, this is an amount he was always responsible to pay. Had the Council checked sooner the amount would still be due. The injustice caused by not checking sooner is that Mr C missed out on paying weekly and now owes a lump sum. If the Council has not already done so it should offer that Mr C can repay in instalments.
11. The Council says it will undertake the initial review at an earlier stage within the six-month timescale. It will also review the direct payment process for those moving from children’s services to adult social care to improve people’s experience and understanding of paying for care.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint because I am satisfied with the action the Council has already taken in response to the complaint. It is unlikely we would add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman