Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council charging his father for care. Mr X said they were told there would be no cost involved in placing his father into care. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about his father’s care charges. He says both him and his father were reassured there would be no cost involved in placing his father into care while he recovered from his stroke and heart attack.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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. (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. Mr X’s father, Mr A, was discharged from hospital. In March 2022, the Council was asked by Mr A’s doctor to arrange respite care for Mr A as he was struggling to manage alone at home.
6. Mr X stayed in the care home between March and May 2022.
7. I am satisfied that if we were to investigate, it is likely we would find fault causing the complainant injustice. This is because there is insufficient evidence to show the Council had provided appropriate information to Mr X and Mr A about potential care charges prior to him entering the care home. The case notes provided by the Council only reflect a discussion was had about Mr A being below the capital threshold and that there was no money for a top up. There is no record to show the Council told Mr A or Mr X that it would complete a financial assessment to work out what Mr A could afford to contribute and that he may be charged a contribution to pay towards his care charges.
8. The Council only informed Mr A about his assessed charges in July 2022, after Mr A had already left the care home.
9. I consider this likely fault will have caused Mr A some distress and frustration. This is because of the shock of finding out he was now responsible for paying a contribution towards the cost of his care.
10. However, I am satisfied this doesn’t mean the charges aren’t payable or that the debt should be wiped. This is because if the likely fault had not occurred, i.e. the Council had appropriately told Mr A and/or Mr X that the Council would charge Mr A an assessed contribution, then the situation Mr A would have been in is the same situation he is in now. There is also uncertainty caused as I cannot say, even on balance, whether Mr A would have declined the care if he was told of the potential for care charges earlier.
11. Therefore, the injustice to remedy is the distress, frustration, and uncertainty caused by not being told about the potential charges earlier.
12. We therefore asked the Council to consider remedying the injustice caused by the likely fault by making a symbolic financial payment of £100. The Council can offset this money against the debt owed by Mr A.

Back to top

Agreed action

13. To its credit, the Council agreed to resolve the complaint and will complete the above within four weeks of the final decision to put things right.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We have upheld this complaint because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr A.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman