Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council charging his mother for care received in a care home, not telling him about third party top up fees, and for delays in completing an assessment of his mother’s care needs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the claimed fault has not caused any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council charging his mother for care received in a care home, not telling him about third party top up fees, and for delays in completing an assessment of his mother’s care needs.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, 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))

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. In September 2023, Mr X asked the Council to complete a care assessment for his mother, Mrs Z. The Council attempted to source an assessment bed as Mrs Z’s house was uninhabitable. However, the Council was not able to find a local authority assessment bed. Mr X told the Council he had found a private care home.
6. Mr X complains the Council failed to tell him about the top up fees, or that his mother would be responsible for the full cost of the placement.
7. The Council’s case records show the social worker told Mr X the rate for the private care home was above the local authority rates for an assessment bed and so there would be a large top up fee. The case record also detailed the Council told Mr X the first four weeks of the placement would not be charged, but that after this Mrs Z would be liable for the full cost of the placement. The Council told Mr X this information before the four-week nonchargeable period had ended.
8. I am satisfied that, on balance, Mr X was given appropriate information about the charging arrangements for the private care home and had sufficient information to be aware Mrs Z would need to pay for the full cost of her care once four weeks had passed. Therefore, an investigation is not justified because we are not likely to find fault.
9. Further, even if we were to find fault with the Council for not providing appropriate information to Mr X about the charging arrangements, an investigation is still not justified. This is because the fault did not cause any significant injustice as Mrs Z would still be responsible for the full cost of her care. Therefore, she is in the exact same position she would have been even if the claimed fault had not happened.
10. We also could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants, which is for the Council to waive Mrs Z’s care charges. This is because it would put her in a better position than she would have been if the fault had not occurred.
11. In October 2023, the Council moved Mrs Z to a local authority assessment bed. The Council’s records confirmed it told Mr X’s brother the placement would be free for up to six weeks, and then become chargeable after six weeks. Therefore, I am satisfied that, on balance, appropriate information about the charging arrangements for the local authority assessment bed was given to Mrs Z’s family. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault.
12. The Council completed its assessment of Mrs Z’s care needs five weeks after she was first placed in a care home. We would usually consider four weeks to be a reasonable period for the Council to complete an assessment. Therefore, there does appear to be a slight delay in the Council completing Mrs Z’s assessment. However, I don’t consider the delay to be so great that we would consider it amounted to fault. Therefore, an investigation is not justified.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, the claimed fault has not caused any significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman