Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about charging for an adult social care respite stay. The Council told the complainant they may have to pay for the respite stay. So, the Council’s delay in completing the financial assessment does not cause the claimed injustice. The Council has apologised for its delay and said the complainant can pay the debt in instalments. It is unlikely we would achieve anything further.

The complaint

1. Ms C says the Council said in writing it would fund a two-week respite stay in a residential care home for her relative, Ms D. Two months later the Council sent Ms C the outcome of its financial assessment meaning Ms D must pay for the respite stay. Ms C says the Council gave no written information before the respite stay, so she could not make an informed decision; Ms C says she would have only had one week respite. Ms C is Ms D’s main carer, and this has added more stress.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Under the Care Act 2014, when the Council is responsible to meet a person’s adult social care needs, it must also assess what if anything they can pay toward that care support.
7. The Council told Ms C before the respite stay that it would complete a financial assessment to decide if Ms D had to pay anything, and she may need to pay for the respite stay. It would have been a better service to confirm the information in writing, but Ms D went on the respite stay knowing she may need to pay for the full two weeks.
8. Ms D has received a service and has been assessed as being able to contribute toward the cost of that service. Ms C knew Ms D might have to pay for the full two weeks before the respite stay took place. I appreciate the Council’s e-mail implied it would pay for the two-weeks, but there was then a telephone conversation after that in which the Council told Ms C about the potential to pay for the residential stay. If Ms C needed any clarity on the funding, she could have asked for it before the respite stay.
9. The Council has apologised to Ms C that it did not complete the financial assessment in its target timescale of 28 days. This delay does not cause the claimed injustice, and an apology is enough to acknowledge Ms C’s distress. The Council has confirmed Ms D can pay the debt in instalments.
10. Ms C says the Council agreed she could just pay for one week, but I have seen no evidence to support this. The evidence I have seen shows the Council confirmed there would be no adjustment to the invoice.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms C’s complaint because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken in response to the complaint. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add to the Council’s investigation or reach a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman