Summary: On behalf of Mr Y, Mr X complained the Council failed to provide a suitable direct payment and asked unnecessary questions when completing a financial assessment. We find the Council at fault for failing to provide relevant information relating to Mr Y’s care charges. This has caused Mr Y and Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and improve its information about live-in care charges.

The complaint

1. On behalf of Mr Y, Mr X complained the Council failed to provide a suitable direct payment and asked unnecessary questions when completing a financial assessment. Mr X told us, as a result of the Council’s actions, Mr Y spent his life savings on his care needs, and the family is now covering the cost of care. Mr X would like the Council to apologise and provide direct payments that meet the carers minimum wage.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We may investigate complaints from the person affected by the complaint issues, or from someone else if they have given their consent. If the person affected cannot give their consent, we may investigate a complaint from a person we decide is a suitable representative. (section 26A or 34C, Local Government Act 1974)
3. 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)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

7. A council has a duty to arrange care and support for those with eligible needs, and a power to meet both eligible and non-eligible needs in places other than care homes. A council can choose to charge for non-residential care following a person’s needs assessment. Where it decides to charge, the council must follow the Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 and have regard to the Care Act statutory guidance. (Care Act 2014, section 14 and 17)
8. Where a council has decided to charge for care, it must carry out a financial assessment to decide what a person can afford to pay. It must then give the person a written record of the completed assessment. Councils have no power to assess couples according to their joint financial resources. A council must treat each person individually. A council must not charge more than the cost it incurs to meet a person’s assessed eligible needs.
9. People receiving care and support other than in a care home need to keep a certain level of income to cover their living costs. Councils’ financial assessments can take a person’s income and capital into consideration, but not the value of their home. After charging, a person’s income must not reduce below a weekly amount known as the minimum income guarantee (MIG). This is set by national government and reviewed each year. A council can allow people to keep more than the MIG. (Care Act 2014)

Direct payments

10. Direct payments are monetary payments made to individuals who ask for them to meet some or all of their eligible care and support needs. They enable people to arrange their own care and support to meet those needs. The council must ensure people have relevant and timely information about direct payments so they can decide whether to request them. If they do so, the council should support them to use and manage the payment properly.
11. The gateway to receiving a direct payment must always be through the request from the person. Councils must not force someone to take a direct payment against their will. They should not place someone in a situation where a direct payment is the only way they can get personalised care and support.
12. Councils must tell people during the care planning stage which of their needs direct payments could meet. However, councils must consider requests for direct payments made at any time and have clear and quick procedures in place to respond to them.
13. After considering the suitability of the person requesting direct payments against the conditions in the Care Act 2014, the council must decide whether to provide a direct payment. In all cases, the council should consider the request as quickly as possible.
14. The council must provide interim arrangements to meet care and support needs to cover the period in question. Where accepted, the council should record the decision in the care or support plan. Where refused, the council should explain its decision in writing to the person who made the request. It should also tell the person how to appeal against the decision through the local complaints procedure. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014)

Lasting power of attorney

15. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 introduced the “Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA)”. This replaced the Enduring Power of Attorney (EPA). An LPA is a legal document, which allows a person (‘the donor’) to choose one or more persons to make decisions for them, when they become unable to do so themselves. The 'attorney' or ‘donee’ is the person chosen to make a decision on the donor’s behalf. Any decision has to be in the donor’s best interests.
16. An attorney or donor must register an LPA with the Office of the Public Guardian before the attorney can make decisions for the donor.

What happened

17. Mr X and two other members of Mr Y’s family were registered as Mr Y’s attorneys in 2015.
18. In October 2024, Mr Y was self-funding privately arranged care which was provided by full-time live-in carers. Mr Y’s family contacted the Council as he was close to reaching the financial threshold and his savings were likely to fall below the threshold within the next month due to his care charges.
19. In November 2024 the Council completed a financial screening to gain a clearer understanding of Mr Y’s circumstances. This screening gave the Council reason to believe Mr Y may have savings above the upper capital limit. In line with the Council’s policy, it issued a letter explaining it believed Mr Y was eligible to pay his full care costs. The Council requested further financial evidence to correctly determine Mr Y’s capital and confirm when he would be eligible for Council funded care.
20. The Council discussed the option of live-in care, a finance assessment and direct payments with Mr X in December 2024 and noted that he was happy with the outcome of the discussion. The Council has not provided evidence Mr X was aware of the long term cost implications of continuing with Mr Y’s active package of care.
21. Mr Y’s family provided the Council with financial evidence in February 2025.
22. In response to the evidence submitted by Mr Y’s family, the Council requested further information and evidence relating to the ongoing cost of Mr Y’s care. Mr X provided an explanation of Mr Y’s care arrangements and associated costs, however no evidence was provided to confirm Mr Y’s spending.
23. Mr X contacted the Council again at the end of March to request an update on the outcome of the financial assessment.
24. The Council told Mr X the financial assessment was still under review due to the lack of evidence provided to confirm Mr Y’s care costs.
25. The Council completed a care assessment and financial assessment in April 2025. The outcome of the assessments determined Mr Y had eligible, unmet care needs. Council records show Mr Y was considered eligible for residential care however, it was agreed Mr Y would continue to receive live-in care at home.
26. To fund Mr Y’s live-in care, the Council provided a flat rate weekly fee, plus 14 hours for breaks, through direct payments.
27. The Council has not provided any evidence Mr Y’s attorneys were made aware of the cost implications of continuing with his live-in care prior to agreeing to the arrangement. The Council provided Mr X information on how it charges for home-based care, but this did not include any direct information about the financial implications of live-in care funding.
28. In June 2025 Mr X complained to the Council that the direct payment amount did not cover the full cost of Mr Y’s care. Mr X also complained the investigation into Mr Y’s finances was not necessary.
29. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint within two weeks. The complaint response explained the Council had assessed Mr Y as eligible for residential care but had agreed to live-in care as the family felt it was in Mr Y’s best interests to remain at home. The Council provided an explanation as to how Mr Y’s funding had been calculated and told Mr X why it was requesting further financial information about the care Mr Y was receiving.
30. Between June 2025 and October 2025 Mr X remained in correspondence with the Council regarding the direct payment and Mr Y’s finances. The Council made the first direct payment in October 2025. The Council has provided a backdated payment which covered the weekly funding from April 2025.

My findings

31. There is no fault in the Council’s actions in requesting additional information and evidence to support the financial assessment. The Council made a reasonable request to allow it to fully understand Mr Y’s ongoing care charges and reduction in capital.
32. The Council has not provided evidence to confirm Mr Y’s attorneys were aware of the funding structure for live-in care and the impact this would have on Mr Y’s care arrangements. I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, whether Mr Y’s attorneys would have opted for residential care, or another alternative, had the Council provided the relevant funding information. The Council’s failure to provide the live-in care funding information is fault which caused distress, frustration and uncertainty to Mr Y and Mr X.
33. There was a 6 month delay in the Council providing Mr Y’s eligible funding. The delay was partly caused by Mr X being unable to provide the requested financial information and the family’s reluctance to sign the direct payment agreement. The Council backdated Mr X’s payments to the date he was first eligible for funded care, so the delay did not cause an injustice.

Action

34. Within one month of the final decision the Council will:
• Apologise to Mr Y and Mr X for the injustice caused by the faults identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Make a symbolic payment of £400, to Mr Y, in recognition of the uncertainty caused by the failure to provide relevant charging information and, failure to provide an explanation of live-in care hours eligibility.
35. Within three months of the final decision the Council will amend its advice sheets and online guidance on home care to ensure it provides enough information which is reflective of its live-in care funding policy to ensure care users and families can make informed decisions when deciding on care arrangements.
36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

37. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman