Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about adult social care charges and delay in invoicing. The Council has apologised for its delay, which we consider is satisfactory action to acknowledge the shock at receiving the invoice.

The complaint

1. Mr B says following a previous Ombudsman decision, the Council delayed chasing an invoice for care charges for three years. Because Mr B had not heard from the Council, he assumed it had waived the care charges. So, it was a shock to then receive an invoice, and has caused him frustration, stress, and anger. Mr B wants the Council to waive the care charges.

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:

• 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Ombudsman decided a complaint from Mr B in 2020 about the care support of Mr B’s mother (Mrs C), and the associated charges. Mrs C has since died.
7. During that investigation the Council put on hold any chasing of the outstanding care fees until the outcome of the Ombudsman’s investigation. The Ombudsman’s decision made no recommendation to waive any care charges, so they remained due.
8. The Council failed to chase Mrs C for payment until earlier this year, just after she died. This was a shock to Mr B as he assumed the charges had been waived. There was nothing to lead Mr B to this assumption, given the Ombudsman made no recommendation to waive care charges and the Council provided no confirmation it had waived any care charges.
9. The Council’s three-year delay is fault, and I accept receiving an invoice after three years, and the timing of it after Mrs C’s death, was upsetting for Mr B. However, Mr B could have limited this injustice by contacting the Council in those three years to question what was happening with the outstanding debt.
10. The Council has apologised to Mr B for its delay and has put a hold on invoices while it awaits information requested from Mr B about Mrs C’s assets. This is satisfactory action to acknowledge Mr B’s upset. The Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome Mr B wants, to waive the care charges. Those charges arise from care that Mrs C received and are not a direct injustice caused by the Council’s delay.
11. The Council has told Mr B it may recover the care charges from him personally if there are not enough funds in Mrs C’s estate. Mr B is the executor of the estate, and that responsibility does come with some risks. It is the executor’s responsibility to pay off any debts owed by the estate, if they distribute the estate and leave a creditor outstanding the creditor may bring a claim against the executor. This is a legal matter and not one the Ombudsman can decide.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because the Council has apologised for its delay which is satisfactory action to acknowledge Mr B’s upset. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr B wants, to waive the care charges, because that is not a direct injustice of the Council’s delay.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman