Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s management of and charges for domiciliary care provided to his late brother Mr Y. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y was Mr X’s brother. Mr Y received care after leaving hospital in late 2023. The Council assessed him and commissioned a care firm to provide support for Mr Y at home. Mr Y died in early 2024 after going back to hospital. The Council sent Mr Y’s estate an invoice for 33 days of care he received, up to the date he was assessed as eligible for free care from the NHS.
2. Mr X complains the Council:
1. charged Mr Y for the care without a signed agreement or contract in place;
2. did not control how many care visits Mr Y received;
3. charged more for the care than Mr Y received in income for that period.
3. Mr X says he is angry on behalf of Mr Y. He says if Mr Y had not died, he would have become a paying client. Mr X says his brother told him the care was a free trial period, to decide if he wanted it. As there was no signed written contract or agreement, Mr X believes what Mr Y told him about the care being free, and he considers Mr Y’s estate should not have to pay for it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 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

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We recognise Mr X believes what Mr Y told him about the care being free. But the evidence from the Council’s records shows officers told Mr Y the care would be chargeable from the date it started if the outcome of his financial assessment was that he was not entitled to free care. We understand Mr X disagrees that the care fee money is due because there was no written agreement in place between the Council and Mr Y. But there is no dispute that Mr Y received and had the benefit of the care provision, and that he had assets which meant he would pay for care. Mr Y’s acceptance of and receipt of the care indicated his agreement with the Council for it to be provided to him. We could not say the Council is at fault for seeking payment for care someone has accepted and received where they have been determined to be someone who pays for that care. There is not enough evidence of fault on this issue to justify us investigating.
7. We note the Council has placed any recovery action on hold during the complaint process. Mr X or the estate may choose to not pay the care fees. It would then be for the Council to decide what recovery action to take to recover the debt it considers is due from the estate. Should the Council take the matter to court, Mr X and any other representative of the estate would have the opportunity to put their case before that court for a ruling.
8. Mr X considers the Council did not control the amount of care Mr Y received. The Council has provided evidence that Mr Y was involved in changes to his care provision. Officers and staff consulted with him about his care and put in place the provision Mr Y considered he needed. He reduced the amount he received as his condition improved. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council arranged and agreed the amount of care Mr Y received to warrant investigation.
9. Mr X says Mr Y’s care cost more than the income he got during the period he received care. Someone’s eligibility for free care is not based solely on their ongoing income, such as a pension or salary. A financial assessment counts all relevant assets available to them, including their savings and other monies. A person with total assets over £23,250 would be expected to use them to fund their own care. The Council’s financial assessment determined Mr Y had assets over that statutory threshold so he had to pay for care. Once the sum falls below £23,250, a service user may apply for support with their social care fees. It was not fault for the Council to arrange care provision for Mr Y which cost more than his income.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman