Summary: Miss X complained the actions of the Council’s commissioned care provider caused Mr Y to be liable for unreasonable costs. She says this caused her unnecessary distress and financial strain. We find the Council at fault which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment and take service improvement action.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council commissioned care by the Home Group Ltd “the care provider” which did not meet Mr Y’s care needs. Specifically, she complains:
1. the care provider did not properly follow Mr Y’s care plan;
2. the care provider did not properly investigate an unexplained injury;
3. the care provider’s actions caused Mr Y to be liable for unreasonable energy costs; and
4. the care provider communicated with Miss X poorly.
2. Miss X says the care provider’s actions have impacted Mr Y’s physical health and emotional wellbeing. She says the care provider’s actions have caused her unnecessary distress and financial strain.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. Part 3 and Part 3A of the Local Government Act 1974 give us our powers to investigate adult social care complaints. Part 3 is for complaints where local councils provide services themselves. It also applies where a council arranges or commissions care services from a provider, even if the council charges the person receiving the care. In these cases, we treat the provider’s actions as if they were council actions. Part 3A is for complaints about care bought directly from a care provider by the person who needs it or their representative, and includes care funded privately or with direct payments using a personal budget. (Part 3 and Part 3A Local Government Act 1974; section 25(6) & (7) of the Act)
5. 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)
6. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
7. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
8. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
9. We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be or have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

10. Miss X complains about matters which started in January 2024. Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in June 2025. The care provider did not direct Miss X to the Ombudsman in its final complaint response. I consider if it had done so, it is likely Miss X would have brought her complaint to us sooner. I consider this to be a good reason to exercise my discretion and start my investigation from January 2024.
11. The matters Miss X has raised in part a of her complaint about the care provider not following the care plan has been considered by the Court of Protection. As I explained above, we cannot investigate matters which have been considered in court proceedings. For this reason, I have not investigated part a of the complaint.
12. Miss X tells me she is satisfied the care provider followed its processes with regards to Mr Y’s unexplained injury. She tells me she is seeking information about any disciplinary action the care provider took with its staff members following the incident. We cannot provide this information and therefore cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking. Therefore, I have not investigated part b of the complaint.
13. I have investigated parts c and d of the complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

14. I considered evidence provided by Miss Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
15. Miss Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
16. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

17. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) provide legal protection for individuals who lack mental capacity to consent to care or treatment and live in a care home, hospital or supported living accommodation. The DoLS protect people from being deprived of their liberty, unless it is in their best interests and there is no less restrictive alternative. The legislation sets out the procedure to follow to obtain authorisation to deprive an individual of their liberty. Without the authorisation, the deprivation of liberty is unlawful. It is the responsibility of the care home or hospital to apply for authorisation. For people being cared for somewhere other than a care home or hospital, deprivation of liberty will only be lawful with an order from the Court of Protection. The DoLS Code of Practice 2008 provides statutory guidance on how they should be applied in practice.
18. A key principle of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is that any act done for, or any decision made on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be in that person’s best interests. The decision-maker also has to consider if there is a less restrictive choice available that can achieve the same outcome. Section 4 of the Act provides a checklist of steps decision-makers must follow to determine what is in a person’s best interests.
19. If there is a conflict about what is in a person’s best interests, and all efforts to resolve the dispute have failed, the Court of Protection might need to decide what is in the person’s best interests.

Finances (part b of the complaint)

20. Councils can take disability-related benefit into account when calculating how much someone should pay towards the cost of their care. When doing so, a council should make an assessment to allow the person to keep enough benefit to pay for necessary disability-related expenditure (DRE) to meet any needs it is not meeting. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance says any reasonable additional costs directly related to a person's disability should be included. What counts as DRE should not be limited to what is necessary for care and support.
21. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance sets out a list of examples of such expenditure which includes personal assistance costs, including any household or other necessary costs arising for the person.
22. The Home Group’s ‘Looking After Money and Valuables for Supported Customers' policy says that all arrangements to look after customers’ money or valuables must be managed and reviewed in line with its safeguarding policy and procedures.
23. The Home Group’s safeguarding policy defines all types of abuse including financial abuse and organisational abuse. It says it is committed to promoting safety and managing associated risks effectively. It says it works with customers and others who support them to identify appropriate safety measures that reduce or manage risks in line with their preferred choices.

What happened

24. Mr Y has complex care needs. He does not have mental capacity and is subject to a DoLS.
25. In early 2024, Mr Y moved into a bespoke supported living placement commissioned by the Council. He was the only customer who lived there with two members of staff supporting him 24 hours a day.
26. Mr Y’s care plan said Miss X manages his finances on his behalf. She provided a a prepaid debit card to help Mr Y manage his spending. The care provider took Mr Y on daily outings where he used the prepaid debit card on food and activities.
27. In June, Miss X told the care provider Mr Y was in financial debt due to high utility bills. She told the care provider she was concerned about staff using excessive heating during summer months and charging Mr Y’s electric vehicle during peak hours. She asked the care provider to monitor their energy usage and use energy during off peak times where possible. She told the care provider its staff were also responsible for managing Mr Y’s daily spending inside and outside of the home. She requested a meeting to plan a budget to prevent his debt increasing. The care provider agreed to a meeting and told Miss X it did not have any information regarding Mr Y’s income or budgets for his food, activities or utilities.
28. In July, Miss X met with the care provider to discuss the increase in energy bills for which Mr Y was liable.
29. In August, Miss X contacted the care provider and requested a formal meeting to discuss Mr Y’s finances and set a budget for his spending. She told the care provider Mr Y was spending too much money on unnecessary items. She requested regular gas and electricity metre readings. She told the care provider she had asked for metre readings previously which had not been provided.
30. Miss X also contacted the Council and requested a meeting to discuss financial arrangement between Miss X, the Council and the care provider. She said despite the meeting with the care provider in July, the energy use has continued to increase, and Mr Y was liable for a further £750 in energy costs for a ten-week period in the summer. The Council told Miss X it had arranged a meeting to discuss finances and budgets with the care provider in two weeks’ time.
31. In early September, the Council reviewed Mr Y’s care and support plan. It remained the same. It completed a financial assessment. It assessed Mr Y to have the standard disability related expenditure allowance, which was £17 per week. It charged Mr Y £33 per week for his care.
32. In September, the care provider agreed to another meeting with Miss X. It said it still did not understand Mr Y’s spending budget. The care provider agreed it would take steps to manage its energy usage. It said it would take room temperatures in Mr Y’s home and ensure the home was kept at 19 degrees maximum. It said it would consider placing a restriction on the boiler.
33. In late November, the Council held an multi agency meeting to discuss Mr Y’s care. It decided to hold these meetings fortnightly.
34. In January 2025, Miss X made a formal complaint to the care provider.
35. The care provider accepted communication had not been regular and stated it would provide Miss X with weekly updates about energy usage.
36. Miss X escalated her complaint to stage two. The care provider did not direct her to the Ombudsman in its final complaint response.
37. In June, Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. The Council was not aware of her complaint to the care provider.
38. In April 2026, the Council completed another financial assessment. It determined Mr Y should have an additional disability related expenditure allowance of £116 per week and so an overall total disability related expenditure allowance of £133 per week. It said Mr Y should not pay anything for his care. It backdated Mr Y’s account to reflect this.

Analysis

Finances (part c of the complaint)

39. The care provider should have had a policy about how it manages finances for clients in its live in services who do not have capacity. It did not do so. The Council’s commissioning service should have identified this before Mr Y moved in. It did not do so. This is fault. This caused Miss X unnecessary uncertainty, which is injustice.
40. Mr Y cannot manage his own energy costs and usage. The Council should have considered the practicalities of its bespoke care package during its commissioning process. I consider it was reasonable for the Council to show consideration to the financial impact on Mr Y and correspond with the care provider to plan the energy usage and utility bills to safeguard Mr Y. At a minimum it should have ensured a household budgeting plan was completed for Mr Y prior to him moving in. I consider the Council did not show appropriate oversight in this case. This is fault. This caused Miss X further unnecessary uncertainty, which is injustice.
41. Miss X was responsible for managing Mr Y’s finances. Miss X told the care provider Mr Y was in financial debt in June and asked it to take reasonable action. The care provider should have taken her concerns seriously and taken action to protect Mr Y from further debt. The care provider did not follow Miss X’s directions to manage Mr Y’s energy usage and other spending appropriately and did not take any action to reduce Mr Y’s costs until September once it had met with the Council. This delay is fault. This fault caused Mr Y to incur costs he would not have done had the care provider acted sooner. This said, it is not possible for us to calculate the specific amount of additional energy the care provider used which would not have been used but for its fault. It also caused Miss X avoidable and unnecessary distress, uncertainty and financial strain, which is injustice.
42. The Council is unable to provide minutes of any meetings held by the care provider with Miss X and the meeting the Council had with the care provider to discuss Mr Y’s finances in late Summer 2024. This is fault. This caused Miss X further avoidable frustration and uncertainty, which is injustice.
43. The Council accepts it made an error in its original calculation of Mr Y’s disability related expenditure allowance. The Council’s error meant Mr Y has been wrongly charged for his care. This is fault. Miss X contributed to Mr Y’s living costs which caused her avoidable financial strain and unnecessary stress. The Council tells us it has now adjusted Mr Y’s account to reflect the new disability related expenditure allowance. I cannot say the Council should refund all charges Mr Y paid towards his care from the date his placement began because it is based on Mr Y’s disability related expenditure at the time and the care provider also made payments towards the utility costs. However, the Council should take further action to satisfy itself it has remedied any outstanding financial injustice to Mr Y.

Communication (part d of the complaint)

44. Miss X made repeated requests for information which were not provided. Miss X was overall responsible for managing Mr Y’s finances and so I consider all her requests for financial information including energy usage were reasonable. I consider, on balance, the care provider’s lack of transparency with Miss X also indicates some fault with its record keeping. In its complaint response the care provider accepted it had not properly communicated with Miss X. I consider the poor communication is fault and caused avoidable and unnecessary distress and frustration to Miss X, which is injustice.

Complaints handling

45. The care provider did not provide the Ombudsman’s details in its final complaint’s response. It directed Miss X to another organisation. This is fault. This caused Miss X additional avoidable and unnecessary frustration and time and trouble.
46. The Council was not aware of Miss X’s complaint to the care provider. The Council should have a robust system in place to monitor complaints about its commissioned services. I find the Council at fault for not properly monitoring complaints about its commissioned services.

Back to top

Action

47. Within four weeks of the final decision statement, the Council has agreed to:
1. provide a written apology to Miss X for the avoidable significant distress, frustration and financial strain caused by the Council’s lack of oversight regarding the commissioned service to Mr Y, the care provider’s poor communication with Miss X and the care provider and Council’s significant delay taking action following her concerns about the care provider’s management of Mr Y’s finances.
2. make a symbolic payment of £500 to Miss X in recognition of the avoidable significant distress, frustration and financial strain as detailed above.
3. make a symbolic payment of £200 to Miss X in recognition of the unnecessary frustration and time and trouble caused to her by the care provider misdirecting her to another organisation in its final complaints response.
4. consider whether to backdate the disability related living expenditure calculation to the date Mr Y moved into the bespoke placement and provide the outcome in writing to Miss X detailing the information it relied upon in its calculations and its decision-making rationale.
48. Within three months of the final decision statement, the Council has agreed to:
1. provide an action plan to improve its commissioning process for bespoke supported living placements with specific consideration to the learning identified in this case.
2. provide an action plan to ensure it has a robust mechanism in place to monitor complaints about its commissioned services.
49. 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.
50. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman