Summary: Mr Y complains the Council did not inform him about possible charges it would make for his father’s residential care following a hospital discharge. Mr Y says the Council issued an invoice for the charges before completing the assessment process. The Council has reviewed the case and decided to waive the outstanding care fees and make a payment of £400 in recognition of the avoidable distress caused by fault. This is an appropriate remedy, and we have not investigated the complaint further.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council’s decision to invoice his late father’s estate for fees incurred during his stay at a care home. Mr Y says they were never told about fees, his father was not assessed nor told he would have to pay for his care before he died.
2. Mr Y’s father was in a ‘discharge to assess’ placement and understood that fees would apply only after his father had been assessed and a suitable care home placement found.
3. Mr Y says the social worker told them the fees would be waived, but the Council’s finance team refused this request.
4. Mr Y complains the charges are unjustified and dealing with this has caused him avoidable distress. He considers the charges should be cancelled.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
6. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response before writing this decision.
8. Mr Y 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

9. Mr Y’s father, whom I will call Mr W, was admitted to hospital in June 2023. In October 2023 the hospital discharged Mr W into a short-term residential placement funded by the NHS. Shortly after moving into the placement, Mr W fell and fractured his hip. Mr W went back into hospital where he stayed for just under one month.
10. Mr W was discharged into another residential placement initially funded by the NHS. Two weeks after moving there the Council visited Mr W to begin the assessment process to determine his long-term care and support needs.
11. The NHS funding ended in late December. Mr Y says the Council did not inform him that Mr Y may need to contribute to any ongoing care charges.
12. In the meantime, the NHS assessed Mr W to see if he was eligible for longer term NHS funding under Continuing Health Care (CHC). This assessment concluded that Mr W was not eligible.
13. Shortly after the CHC assessment concluded, Mr W passed away.
14. On 18 January 2024 the Council requested financial information about Mr W.
15. The Council says Mr Y did not respond and so it completed a ‘light touch’ financial assessment on 18 March 2024 to determine how much Mr W’s estate would need to contribute to the cost of the care provided.
16. Following this, the Council issued an invoice on 27 March 2024 seeking payment of £448.96 to cover the period 12 December 2023 to 4 January 2024.
17. Mr Y contacted the Council to query the invoice. He said the Council had not told him that Mr W would need to contribute to the cost of the care he received before the social care and financial assessment process had completed.
18. The Council considered waiving the invoice but decided that Mr Y would need to pay the full amount.
19. Mr Y complained to the Council and then to the Ombudsman about the Council’s decision to charge for Mr W’s care.
20. Following receipt of our enquiries, the Council re-considered Mr W’s case. It said there was no record of a Care Act Assessment being completed in accordance with its policy. As a result, the Council has now decided to waive the invoice.
21. In recognition of the distress, time and trouble caused the Council has also proposed to make a payment of £400 to Mr Y and make an unreserved apology that the errors were not identified earlier.
22. In our view, this is an appropriate remedy for this complaint. Mr Y made clear that his desired outcome would be for the Council to waive the invoice. As this has now been offered, it is my view that further investigation would not achieve a more desirable outcome for Mr Y.

Back to top

Action

23. The Council should provide us with evidence it has cancelled the invoice and made the £400 payment within four weeks of our final decision.

Back to top

Decision

24. I have completed my investigation. The actions now agreed by the Council will provide an appropriate remedy for Mr Y’s complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman