Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council invoicing for backdated care charges and its delay completing her mother Mrs Y’s financial assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s assessment to warrant an investigation. We would not achieve a different outcome from investigating the Council’s delay in the financial assessment.

The complaint

1. Mrs X is the daughter of Mrs Y. Mrs Y was receiving a daily half-hour care visit from a care firm commissioned by the Council. Mrs X complains the Council:
1. failed to advise that Mrs Y receiving Attendance Allowance benefit would mean she would have to pay for her care from the date it had started;
2. did not identify care fees were due until eight months after care had begun.
2. Mrs X says the Council invoiced Mrs Y over £4,000 in April 2024 for care received since the September 2023. She says the matter has caused stress, worry and anxiety to her and Mrs Y when it should have alleviated them. Mrs X says she has cancelled the care and now has to provide this to Mrs Y as well as other care to her husband and son. Mrs X wants the Council to identify training needs for its staff and improvements to its systems to prevent similar happening in future. She wants the Council to recognise its mistakes and waive the invoice amount.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Mrs X and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X says Mrs Y was not receiving Attendance Allowance (AA) until the Council encouraged her to apply, which she did around the time the care process started in 2023. Mrs X was then AA backdated to just before the care for Mrs X started. She also got a Pension Credit (PC) increase. The Council took into account the additional money Mrs Y received from these benefits when processing her financial assessment to determine what charge, if any, she would have to pay towards the care. It was not fault for the Council to do this. The care charging system requires council to not disregard AA or PC benefits when calculating care charges. It was also not fault for the Council to advise Mrs X that Mrs Y should apply for a benefit such as AA to which she was entitled.
6. The Council gave Mrs X written information near the start of the process which advised her Mrs Y may incur a charge for the care she was receiving. Mrs X accepts she signed an ‘Agreement to Pay a Charge’ form. We note Mrs X says she signed the form reluctantly or under pressure from a Council officer. It is unlikely there would be enough evidence available to us to now make a finding if we were to investigate the circumstances of Mrs X signing the agreement in 2023. Mrs X signed up for the care for Mrs Y on the basis that there may be a charge, depending on the outcome of the financial assessment. The Council’s assessment of Mrs Y’s circumstances was required, as explained above, to take account of the benefits she received. There is not enough evidence of Council fault in the information it gave Mrs X about care charges to warrant investigation.
7. There was fault by the Council in the time it took to complete the financial assessment and issue its invoice, which took about eight months. The Council has apologised for this delay. The delay led to a larger invoice than there would have been if the assessment had been done sooner. We recognise receiving the invoice would have been a shock to Mrs X and Mrs Y and has caused upset. But the Council’s apology for this and its offer of instalments to pay the backdated fees is the outcome we would have sought here if it had not already been provided. We would not achieve a different outcome from investigating. Waiving all or part of the care fees would not be an appropriate remedy as Mrs Y received the care for which her financial circumstances required her to pay.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s financial assessment decision and process to warrant us investigating; and
• investigating the Council’s financial assessment delay would not achieve a different outcome from the one provided.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman