Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council incorrectly recording that Mr X’s care had been funded by NHS continuing healthcare. It apologised to Mrs X for its error and reissued invoices for the correct amount. We could not achieve anything further.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council provided conflicting information about her husband’s (Mr X’s) care charges, resulting in a large debt having accrued. She said the matter caused her distress. She wanted the Council to make service improvements.

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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, 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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X contacted the Council in January 2024 to ask why Mr X’s charges for care had not been taken for three months. The Council told Mrs X that Mr X had been overcharged in 2023 because he had received funding from NHS continuing healthcare for a temporary condition.
6. However, this information was incorrect. Mrs X therefore queried this, and the Council placed a hold on Mr X’s invoices while it investigated the matter. The Council told Mrs X in June 2024 its earlier correspondence had been incorrect, and this was caused by the wrong option having been selected from a drop-down menu on Mr X’s file. It confirmed Mr X had not received any NHS continuing healthcare funding and it issued a new, correct invoice.
7. Mrs X complained to the Council. It apologised for the error and for the time it had taken to investigate the matter. Mrs X was not satisfied, and complained to us.
8. Mrs X has not asked us to recommend the outstanding invoice be waived, however her correspondence with the Council indicates this is what she would like to happen. When we consider how injustice should be remedied, we consider what would have happened but for fault. In this case, had the wrong option not been selected from the drop-down menu, Mr X would have continued paying for his care. It does not follow, therefore, that the Council’s error caused a quantifiable financial impact for which a waiver of fees would be an appropriate remedy.
9. Instead, in this case, the injustice caused was frustration for Mrs X, and possibly some distress. However, Mrs X was aware when contacting the Council both in January and May 2024 that there had likely been an error by the Council. Mr X had not developed any temporary health condition as the Council stated, and the NHS had not notified Mrs X, as his attorney, about any funding having been agreed. Mrs X had a reasonable expectation therefore that charges would be owed due to an error by the Council.
10. Due to this, the Council’s apology for the error and the delay is sufficient, and if we investigated the matter it is unlikely we would recommend something different.
11. There is no evidence of a systemic issue that would justify us recommending service improvement measures in this case. The incorrect recording was likely a one-off error, and we cannot make recommendations for individual members of Council staff.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it is unlikely we could achieve anything further by investigating the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman