Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her father’s financial assessment. The Council accepts it did not deal with it properly and has apologised for the inconvenience it has caused. It has also reminded officers of the need to communicate with people effectively. The Council also needs to make symbolic payments to Ms X and her parents. It also needs to take further action to improve its working practices.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, complains about the Council’s handling of her father’s financial assessment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Ms X;
• discussed the complaint with Ms X;
• considered the information the Council has provided;
• considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies; and
• invited comments on a draft of this statement from Ms X and the Council, for me to consider before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. Ms X’s father, Mr Y, has dementia. He lives at home with his wife, who is his main carer. They contacted the Council last year because Mrs Y was struggling with her role as her husband’s carer.
6. The Council assessed Mr Y’s needs in June 2023, and his wife’s needs as his carer. It noted that, without support from his wife, the Council would have to provide a package of care of at least three calls a day. It told them it would fund three hours a week to employ a personal assistant to engage with Mr Y and meet his needs while Mrs Y went out for appointments and to meet people in the community.
7. However, after the assessments the Council told Ms X it had agreed to fund two hours of support a week. She tried to resolve the issue, but couldn’t get anyone to engage effectively with her.
8. The Council then invited Mrs Y to complete a financial assessment. When she returned this in July, it showed she would need to contribute up to £27.94 a week towards any support the Council provided.
9. The Council produced a care and support plan for Mr Y, which provided for three hours of support a week. Ms X says it never shared the care and support plan with her parents.
10. However, the Council then realised it had made a mistake, as it should have asked Mr Y to complete the financial assessment, as it was proposing to fund the support via his care and support plan. It sent Mr Y a financial assessment. However, it did not explain that it had made a mistake, leaving the family confused about why both Mr & Mrs Y needed to have financial assessments.
11. After further unsuccessful attempts to resolve the issue of the number of hours, Ms X made a complaint. The same day the Council contacted Mr & Mrs Y to discuss ways of paying for the three hours of support.
12. A few days later, after speaking to Ms X, the Council sent Mrs Y the outcome of her financial assessment. On the same day, a manager called Ms X, 26 days after she first requested a call, and confirmed that the Council had corrected the number of hours from two to three 20 days ago. The manager could not explain why Mr Y had now been asked to complete a financial assessment. However, the next day the manager confirmed that Mr Y would have to complete a financial assessment, as it was providing support for him.
13. When the Council replied to Ms X’s complaint in September, it said:
• It apologised for the time Ms X had spent trying to correct the mistake over the number of hours.
• It had been a mistake to ask Mrs Y to complete a financial assessment. It apologised for the inconvenience and confusion this had caused.
• The manager apologised for the time it took to respond to Ms X’s request for a call.
• To move forward, Mr Y needed to return the financial assessment.
14. When Mr Y returned his financial assessment, the Council decided he could contribute up to £581.66 a week towards the cost of his care. The Council told them about its decision in October.
15. Ms X made a further complaint to the Council. When it replied in November, the Council said:
• It could not explain why it took 20 days for someone to confirm that three hours had been agreed, rather than two, but apologised. It said staff had been reminded of the need to update clients and their families.
• It confirmed that the initial plan had been to include the three hours in Mrs Y’s carer’s support plan. However, it explained that its policy was to charge the person receiving the respite care (i.e. her father). It also explained that charges were means tested, which meant her father may have to pay more than it had assessed her mother as having to pay.
• It took the manager 26 days to contact Ms X because they worked part-time and had to prioritise several work tasks. However, it acknowledged the importance of updating people in a timely manner.
• It had not been possible to respond to Ms X’s first complaint in August because of competing priorities.
16. Ms X appealed the Council’s decision on her father’s financial assessment. When it responded to the appeal in November, the Council reduced the maximum charge by £1.38 to £580.28 a week. It said, although Mr Y was paying off a loan (£72.57 a week), this did not reduce his income below the weekly amount of guaranteed pension credits for a couple of £306.85, so this did not have implications for his appeal. However, it told Ms X they had the right to submit a second stage appeal.
17. Ms X tells me they decided not to accept support from the Council, as it was cheaper for her parents to arrange it themselves.

Is there evidence of fault by the Council which caused injustice?

18. The Council accepts it made several mistakes. It told the family it would provide three hours a week, but then reduced this to two hours. Despite correcting its error, it failed to tell them it had done this. It delayed in responding to Ms X’s request for contact from a manager, causing more frustration and wasting the time of more people. It sent Mrs Y a financial assessment form, which can be time consuming to complete. It failed to explain that it had made an error, or why Mr Y needed to fill in a financial assessment. This caused further confusion. It also delayed Mr & Mrs Y’s ability to make an informed decision on whether to accept support via the Council or make their own arrangements.
19. The Council was not at fault for including the respite in Mr Y’s care and support plan. However, it appears the Council did not send Mr Y a copy of his care and support plan. That is further fault by the Council. The Care and Support Statutory Guidance lists the things the final plan needs to include:
• The needs identified by the assessment
• Whether, and to what extent, the needs meet the eligibility criteria
• The needs that the authority is going to meet, and how it intends to do so
• For a person needing care, for which of the desired outcomes care and support could be relevant
• The personal budget
• Information and advice on what can be done to reduce the needs in question, and to prevent or delay the development of needs in future
• Where needs are being met via a direct payment, the needs to be met via the direct payment and the amount and frequency of the payments
20. Mr Y’s care and support plan does not include all these things, including his personal budget. That is further fault by the Council.
21. Many of the Council’s faults could have been resolved quite easily through better communication. The Council has acknowledged this. It has apologised and reminded staff of the need to keep people informed. However, the apologies are not enough to remedy the delay in enabling Mr & Mrs Y to decide how best to arrange their support. Nor are they enough to remedy the time and trouble Ms X has been put to in pursuing the complaint on behalf of her parents.

Back to top

Agreed action

22. I recommended the Council:
• Within four weeks pays Mr & Mrs Y £200 and Ms X £100; and
• Within eight weeks takes action to ensure:
1. officers send people copies of their care and support plans; and
2. its care and support plans meet the requirements of the Care & Support Statutory Guidance.
23. The Council has agreed to do this. It should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation on the basis there has been fault by the Council causing injustice which requires further remedies.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman